A case study of the use of ESL communication
strategies by Vietnamese refugees and
immigrants in the Manchester context
Author’s Name: Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao
University of Salford
British Council ELT Master’s Dissertation Awards: Commendation
A CASE STUDY OF THE USE OF ESL COMMUNICTION
STRATEGIES BY VIETNAMESE REFUGEES AND
IMMIGRANTS IN THE MANCHESTER CONTEXT
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Furthermore, I would like to thank the participants who volunteered to participate, and have
willingly shared their time throughout the investigation. Thank you for being enthusiastic and
cooperative during the process.
Finally, I express my gratitude to my family and my friends who always support and believe in
me.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ·············································································································· 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ················································································································ 3
LIST OF APPENDICES ················································································································· 7
LIST OF TABLES ·························································································································· 8
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ········································································································· 9
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ·································································································· 10
1.1.
THE CONTEXT OF STUDY ················································································· 10
1.2.
THE STRUCTURE OF STUDY ············································································· 11
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ····················································································· 13
2.1. INTRODUCTION ·············································································································· 13
2.2.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE ··································································· 13
2.2.1.
Definition of communicative competence ······························································· 13
2.2.2.
Models of communicative competence ··································································· 16
Model of Canale and Swan (1980) ········································································· 16
Murcia and Dörnyei (1995) ···················································································· 17
2.3.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES ····································································· 19
2.3.1.
Notion of communication strategies ········································································ 20
Interactional perspective for conceptualization ······················································ 21
Psychological perspective for conceptualization ···················································· 22
2.3.2.
Characteristics of communication strategies ··························································· 22
Problematicity ········································································································· 23
Consciousness ········································································································· 25
Distinguish between communication strategies and learning strategies ················· 27
2.3.3.
Taxonomies of communication strategies ······························································· 28
3
Similarities ·············································································································· 29
Difference ··············································································································· 29
Dörnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)’s taxonomy ······················································ 30
Paribakht (1985) and Nijmegen Group’s taxonomies ············································ 30
2.4.
2.4.1.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES ······················· 31
Research on communication strategies employed by learners of English. ·············· 31
2.4.2. Review of research on Vietnamese refugees and immigrants in the field of
communication strategies in United Kingdom ······································································ 33
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY ······························································································ 35
3.1.
RESEARCH GOALS ······························································································ 35
3.2.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS ································ 35
3.2.1.
Case study ················································································································ 35
3.2.2.
The study ················································································································· 36
The taxonomy used in the research ········································································· 37
3.3.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ············································································ 40
3.4.
SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION ·································································· 41
3.4.1.
Sampling procedures ······························································································· 41
3.4.2.
The participants ······································································································· 42
3.5.
3.5.1.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS ··············································································· 43
Audio-recording······································································································· 43
Data collection ········································································································ 43
Data analysis ··········································································································· 45
3.5.2.
Interview ·················································································································· 46
Data collection ········································································································ 46
Data analysis ··········································································································· 48
3.6.
PILOTING THE RESEARCH ················································································ 48
3.7.
RELIABILITY ········································································································ 49
3.8.
CONCLUSION ······································································································· 49
4
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ········································································ 51
4.1.
INTRODUCTION ··································································································· 51
4.2.
How do Vietnamese refugees and immigrants in the Manchester context use
communication strategies? ········································································································ 52
4.2.1.
The effective learner – P1 ························································································ 52
General view ··········································································································· 53
Literal translation ···································································································· 54
The strategies of over-emphasis and over-using interrogative fragment ················ 58
Over- emphasis strategy·························································································· 60
Over-using interrogative fragment ·········································································· 63
4.2.2.
The less effective learner ························································································· 67
General view of CSs’ use ························································································ 67
Interlingual transfer strategy ··················································································· 68
4.3.
What differences are there in the use of communication strategies between effective
and less-effective second language speakers in the Vietnamese refugee and immigrant
community? ······························································································································· 75
4.3.1.
Asking for confirmation strategy. ············································································ 75
4.3.2.
Topic avoidance (TA) and Keep going strategies (KG) ·········································· 79
Strategy of keep going conversation ······································································· 79
4.3.3.
Strategy of using of fillers ······················································································· 84
Position of fillers in speech. ···················································································· 86
Type of fillers ·········································································································· 89
CHAPPER V: CONCLUSION ····································································································· 90
5.1.
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS ··········································································· 90
5.2.
SIGNIFICANCE ····································································································· 92
5.3.
LIMITATION ·········································································································· 93
5.4.
IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING ········································································· 94
5.5.
FUTHER RESEARCH ···························································································· 95
5
5.6.
FINAL WORDS ······································································································ 95
REFERENCE ································································································································ 97
6
LIST OF APPENDICES
A
Informed Consent Form……………………………………………………………….105
B
Taxonomies of Communication Strategies 1…………………………………………..107
C
Taxonomies of Communication Strategies 2……………………………………..…….108
D
Example of coded data…………………………………………………………………110
7
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1
Taxonomy based on Dörnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)……………………..………….37
2
Frequency of CS’s use in interpersonal talk by the effective learner……….…..…….... 50
3
Frequency of CS’s use in transactional talk by the effective learner……………..…….. 50
4
Frequency of DS’s use in interpersonal talk by the effective learner……………,,…..... 52
5
Frequency of DS’s use in transactional talk by the effective learner………………...... .56
6
Frequency of CS’s use in interpersonal talk by the less effective learner………..….…. 64
7
Frequency of CS’s use in transactional talk by the less effective learner…………….... 65
8
Frequency of DS’s use in interpersonal talk by the less effective learner………….…. .66
9
Frequency of DS’s use in transactional talk by the less effective learner……..……….. 69
10
Frequency of IRS’s use in interpersonal talk by the effective learner……………..…... 73
11
Frequency of IRS’s use in interpersonal talk by the less effective learner……….…… .73
12
Frequency of IDS’s use in interpersonal talk by the effective learner…………….…... 77
13
Frequency of IDS’s use in interpersonal talk by the less- effective learner…………… 81
14
Frequency of IDS’s use in transactional talk by the effective learner…………….…... .82
15
Frequency of IDS’s use in transactional talk by the less- effective learner………..…... 82
8
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
P1
The effective participant
P2
The less effective participant
CS
Communication Strategy
DS
Direct Strategy
IDS
Indirect Strategy
IRS
Interactional Strategy
ELF
English as Lingua Franca
EIL
English as International Language
9
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
1.1.
THE CONTEXT OF STUDY
Communication strategies appear to be among the important factors affecting the success in
second language acquisition. There are a variety of studies on communication strategies
published, and research in this phenomenon reached its peak in 1980s. The definition of
communication strategies is defined in a variety of previous studies in different ways. According
to Faerch and Kasper (1983b), “communication strategies are potentially conscious plans for
solving what to an individual presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative
goal” (p.36). Tarone (1977) supported this view by her definition that “conscious communication
strategies are used by an individual to overcome the crisis which occurs when language
structures are inadequate to convey the individual’s thought” (p.195). It is believed that CSs have
an important impact on the development of strategic competence, one of the components of
communicative competence; therefore, the issues of CS have still been significant in second
language acquisition.
There is a variety of research in CSs in term of second language acquisition; however, a limited
number of CS research focuses on the subjects of refugees and immigrants. A refugee is
"someone who has fled across a national border from his or her home country, or who is unable
to return to it because of a well-founded fear that he or she will be persecuted for reasons of race,
religion, nationality, political opinion or for being a member of a particular social group"
10
(Wilkes, 1994, p. 7). According to Casciani (2014), the immigration rate to UK has increased
recently and among immigrants and refugees coming to UK, Vietnamese accounts for a huge
number. As refugees and immigrants, Vietnamese faces certain challenges. Kleinmann (1982)
highlighted that the biggest challenge for refugees is language which is related to prevocational,
occupational, and survival. Seufert (1999) shows that refugees and immigrants face a lot of
difficulties in learning English as a second language because of three reasons including limited
time to study, previous experience with education and psychological needs. He suggested ESOL
for refugees should have less emphasis on formal language rules. Thus, CS is believed to have
massive impact on learning English as second language by refugees and immigrants. However,
in the literature of CS research, studies focusing specifically on refugees’ experiences of ESOL
are sparse. This current research is undertaken as a case study of two specific cases in
Manchester. Results from research might not be generalisable for the refugee and immigrant
community. Nevertheless, a case study provides an in-depth and detailed picture for CSs’ use.
The research is conducted with the aim of investigating how Vietnamese refugees and
immigrants use CSs in the Manchester context. Findings might contribute the better
understanding of CSs’ use by refugees and immigrants, which enhances the effectiveness of
communication.
1.2.
THE STRUCTURE OF STUDY
In the following chapter, the author reviews the literature pertaining to the current investigation
in order to review the knowledge of communication strategies. Firstly, the chapter introduces the
definition of communicative competence which is the base of communication strategies to
11
emerge. Significant models of communicative competence are also discussed in this section.
Secondly, it describes the notion of communication strategies from different perspectives. In this
section, the characteristics of communication strategies including problematicity and
consciousness are summarized. Additionally, in order to define the taxonomy for research, the
taxonomies which have been proposed before are elucidated, focusing on Dörnyei and Scott
(1995a, 1995b)’s taxonomy and Paribakht (1985) and Nijmegen Group’s taxonomies which are
introduced base on the different views. Thirdly, the literature review looks at the empirical
studies of communication strategies with the emphasis on the subject of learners of English and
specifically Vietnamese refugees and immigrants.
The third chapter describes the methodology considered and used in the current research. The
chapter starts with research goals, and followed by the section of methodological issues and
considerations. Continuingly, the research indicates possible ethical issues, and subjects of the
investigation which the description of sampling procedures and participants. Finally, the section
of research instruments with audio-recordings and interview method are discussed about data
collection and data analysis. The next chapter is about findings and discussion of data collected.
This chapter will be divided into three main sections with introduction at the beginning, and two
remaining sections in the attempt to answer two research questions. The research is concluded by
the final chapter. This chapter summarizes the results of discussion in chapter IV, and indicates
the significance of the research. Furthermore, limitation of study is also considered, followed by
the sections of implication for teaching and further research.
12
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter reviews the literature pertaining to the current investigation. Research into
communication strategies has a long story. The review of literature has been divided into
subsections which frame the debate about communicative competence, and communication
strategies, and thus relate to various aspects of the study. The chapter starts with the discussion
about communicative competence which is considered to be the beginning of the communication
strategies which emerged.
2.2.
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE
2.2.1. Definition of communicative competence
Different theories exist in the literature regarding the term of “communicative competence”. The
notion of communicative competence was firstly defined in detail by Hymes (1972). Before
Hymes, the key term “competence” has been discussed as one of the most controversial terms in
the area of applied linguistics. Within the communicative view of linguistics, Chomsky (1965)
made a fundamental distinction between “competence” and “performance”. Accordingly, he
defined “competence” as the speaker-hearer's knowledge of his language and “performance” as
the actual use of language in concrete situations” (Chomsky, 1965, p4). It seems to be that things
which are related to non-grammatical items belong to the field of linguistic “performance”. It is
13
also argued that Hymes (1972) introduced a broader notion of communicative competence,
whereby Wagner (2005) believed that Hymes brought the sociolinguistic perspective into
Chomsky’s view of linguistic competence. Additionally, Hymes (1974) argued that:
“a child from whom any and all the grammatical sentences of a language might
come with equal likelihood would be a social monster. Within the social matrix in
which it acquires a system of grammar, a child acquires also a system of its use”
(p.75)
Conversely, Chomsky’ supporters indicated that communicative competence could be
flexible, because the capacity for acquiring linguistic competence is natural (Johnstone
and Marcellino, 2010).
In contrast, other studies such as Savignon (1972), Bagarie and Djigunovie (2007) support
Hymes’s concept of competence because they found that the notion introduced by Hymes was
more realistic than Chomsky’s view. According to a definition provided by Hymes (1971), he
not only focused on possibility (“whether an instance conforms to the rules of grammar and
pronunciation”) but also three others of feasibility (“whether an instance can be processed by the
speakers of the language”), appropriateness (“ whether the language or behavior is acceptable in
the given context”), and attestedness ( “ whether.. something is done”) ( Hymes, 1971, p.18-24).
It is true that “meaning and form are closely interrelated” (Nunan, 1989, p.10). Furthermore,
according to Zhang and Yang (2010), drawing a hard and fast distinction between
communicative and non-communicative is challenging. As such, Hymes’s concept of
communicative competence explored three more aspects besides traditional grammaticality.
14
However, more emphasis was placed on a better understanding of how language is used rather
than of how language is structured (Howatt, 1984). This is because “there are rules of use
without which the rules of grammar would be useless” (Hymes, 1971, p.15).
The term of “communicative competence”, which was firstly used by Campbell and Wales
(1970), can be argued as ambiguous in its meaning. Therefore, Bagarie and Djigunovie (2007)
considered Hymes as the father of the notion of “communicative competence” which is defined
more fully and explicitly.
After Hymes, in attempt of clarifying the concept of “communicative competence”, research has
been carried out in the field of applied linguistics. Canale and Swan (1980) and Canale (1983)
use the term “communicative competence” to refer to the combination of two components which
underlies the system of knowledge and skill acquired for communication. Under this definition,
Bagarie and Djigunovie (2007) indicated three kinds of knowledge underlying grammatical
principles, including how to combine communicative function and utterance, and how to use
language in the social context. While skills needed for communication reflect on how to use
these types of knowledge in the real communication.
In other research, Widdowson (1983) made a classic distinction between competence and
capacity to define the term “communicative competence”. He described communicative
competence in term of knowledge of sociolinguistic and linguistic convention. Furthermore, he
indicated that it was the ability of how to use knowledge. However, he paid more attention to
performance in the relationship with competence. In contrast, Savignon (1972) used the term
“competence” to refer to an underlying ability and “performance” to an open manifestation of
competence (Bagarie and Djigunovie, 2007). According to her, “communicative competence is
15
the ability to function in a truly communicative setting – that is, in a dynamic ex- change in
which linguistic competence must adapt itself to total informational input, both linguistic and
paralinguistic, of one or more interlocutors” (Savignon, 1972, p.8). Being inherited by other first
research of communicative competence, Bachman (1990) defined the term “communicative
language ability” as the synthesis of competence and the use of the knowledge in the appropriate
context in order to gain achievement in communication goals. This is the roof/ base of strategic
competence, and to a greater extent, communication strategies.
2.2.2. Models of communicative competence
A number of authors have considered the components of communicative competence because of
its importance in language acquisition, especially during 1970s and 1980s. The current literature
reviews on the models of Canale and Swan (1980), and Murcia and Dörnyei (1995). The reason
why these models are chosen is because they explore important effect on the theory of
communicative competence. In addition, they detail on strategic competence, one of the
components of the communicative competence which remains the center of current research.
Model of Canale and Swan (1980)
One of the first models of communicative competence is proposed by Canale and Swan (1983).
According to Canale and Swan (1980), the model comprises of three components including
grammatical
competence,
sociolinguistic
competence,
and
strategic
competence
(or
communication strategies). Regarding grammatical competence, the authors refer to the
16
knowledge of lexical items and of the rules of syntax, pronunciation, morphology and sentencegrammar semantic. Conversely, sociolinguistic competence is composed of socio-cultural and
discourse rules of use. Later in 1983, Canale isolated the discourse competence from
sociolinguistic competence to become one of the four components of the model. The last
component is strategic competence which is made up “verbal and non- verbal communication
strategies that maybe called in action to compensate for breakdown in communication due to
performance variables or to insufficient competence” (Canale and Swan, 1980, p.30). It is
believed that strategic competence has an impact on other components. Communication
strategies are used to paraphrase the grammatical rules which one has not mastered.
Additionally, it relates to sociolinguistic competence by “various role- playing strategies, how to
address the strangers when unsure of their social status” (Canale and Swan, 1980, p.31).
Murcia and Dörnyei (1995)
In 1995, Murcia and Dörnyei introduced the model of communicative competence being made
up of five components. Compared to Canale and Swan’s model, the authors used the term
“linguistic competence” instead of “grammatical competence” so as to highlight unambiguously
that it comprises of the rules of lexis, pronunciation, morphonogy and syntax. Another minor
difference in the comparison of Canale and Swan’s model is the use of the term “socio-cultural
competence” rather than “sociolinguistic competence”, which emphasizes that socio-cultural
competence is essential for “the appropriate deployment of resources in other components”
(Murcia and Dörnyei, 1995, p.11). Besides these above components and discourse one, Murcia
and Dörnyei (1995) proposed the term “actional competence” as the competence “in conveying
17
and understanding communicative intent, that is, matching actional intent with linguistic form”
(p.17). It is believed that this competence is typical to the written communication rather than oral
communication.
Lastly, the strategic competence is conceptualized as the knowledge of communication
strategies. In this model, Murcia and Dörnyei (1995) have contributed the theory of
communication strategies. The concept of communication strategies is proposed in more details
with three functions of strategies use from different perspectives: psycholinguistic perspective,
interactional perspective and communication maintenance perspective.
SOCIOCULTURAL
COMPETENCE
DISCOURSE
COMPETENCE
ACTIONAL
COMPETENCE
LINGUISTIC
COMPETENCE
STRATEGIC
COMPETENCE
Figure 1: Schematic Representation of Communicative Competence
(Murcia and Dörnyei, 1995, p.10)
18
The figure is represented as Murcia and Dörnyei‘s model of communicative competence. The
circle surrounding the pyramid of discourse competence is strategic competence. It is easy to
realize that it’s potentially usable inventory of skills which the users “negotiate
message…resolve problems or to compensate for deficiencies in any of the other underlying
competencies” (Murcia and Dörnyei, 1995, p.9). The authors also suggested the further research
focusing on communication strategies and offered to teach communication strategies in second
language teaching in the future. This once again highlights the importance of communication
strategies in literature in term of applied linguistics, especially in second language learning and
teaching.
The description of these models of communicative competence could highlight the importance of
the strategic competence, which also refers to communication strategies. It should not be denied
that communication strategies are the means to enhance the effectiveness of communication.
2.3.
COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
An amount of research of communicative competence has been published, especially during
1980s. This showed the importance of communicative competence in the literature of applied
linguistics. Accordingly, the strategic language use has been promoted to discover in the field of
linguistic, because strategic competence is believed to help second language speakers to handle
the difficulties and breakdown communication (Canale and Swan, 1990). Moreover, with the
recognition of the mismatch between second language speakers’ linguistic resources and
communication target, “communication strategies” has become the dominant phenomena of
19
research among other fields of linguistics (Dörnyei and Scott, 1997). Among the other aspects of
communication strategies such as the elements affecting to communication strategies, the role of
communication strategies, etc, the review of literature only put the emphasis on the notion and
the taxonomies of communication strategies. It is easy to understand, because these two aspects
could be considered to be the capital influential as the central of “communication strategies”
research. Therefore, understanding these aspects seems to mostly illuminate others related to the
field of communication strategies.
2.3.1. Notion of communication strategies
Different perspective for conceptualization
The term of “communication strategies” was firstly used by Selinker (1972) in his published
paper entitled “Interlanguage” when defining five central processes in second language learning;
however, the author didn’t indicate the nature of communication strategies in details. In the early
literature, other research uses different terms for communication strategies such as “coping
strategies” (Savignon, 1972), “strategic language behavior” (Varadi, 1973). In 1977, Tarone
(1977) proposed the full and clear definition of communication strategies and also provided the
taxonomy. The researchers have attempted to conceptualize “communication strategies” from
different perspective. These followings have apparently become the influential approach in
conceptualization literature.
The traditional perspective could be the first one to consider the concept of communication
strategies. This view reflects that communication strategies are considered as the verbal and non-
20
verbal devices in order to overcome the gap occurring in communication and reach the
communication goals (Dörnyei and Scott, 1997). According to Faerch and Kasper (1983b),
“communication strategies are potentially conscious plans for solving what to an individual
presents itself as a problem in reaching a particular communicative goal” (p.36). Tarone (1977)
supported this view by her definition that “conscious communication strategies are used by an
individual to overcome the crisis which occurs when language structures are inadequate to
convey the individual’s thought (p.195). Under this conceptualization, communication strategies
are involved in problem-management efforts and language production problems which happen at
the planning stage, which indicates that communication strategies are different from other
problem- solving devices. Namely, communication strategies, repair- mechanism, and
negotiation of meaning in communication are completely independent in research literature
(Yule and Tarone, 1991).
Interactional perspective for conceptualization
This perspective highlights the role of meaning rather than linguistic structure in defining
communication strategies (Canale, 1983; Dörnyei and Scott, 1995, 1995b). Tarone (1980)
defined “communication strategies are seen as tools used in a joint negotiation of meaning where
both interlocutors are attempting to agree as to a communicative goal” (p.420). Compared to her
earlier definition in 1977, this conceptualization seems to be broader by extending the actual
purpose of communication strategies which she believed to “clarify intended meaning rather than
simply correct linguistic form” (Tarone, 1980, p.422). Due to the impact of the interactional
perspective, a variety of author such as Canale, 1983; Dörnyei and Scott, 1995, 1995b; Savignon,
21
1983 and Willems, 1987 provided the taxonomies with interactional mechanisms. However, it
should be noted that Tarone did not extended interactional strategies in her taxonomy; rather, she
chose to offer the well-known conceptualization of communication strategies from interactional
view.
Psychological perspective for conceptualization
Within the literature of defining communication strategies, a considerable amount of researchers
has developed from a completely different perspective, associated with the psychological
approach. Bialystok (1990) argued that communication strategies should be regarded in the
cognitive processes underlying the strategic language use, because he believed that
communication strategies are mental procedures. Following up this perspective, Kellerman
(1991), Poulisse(1990), Bongaerts and Bentlage (1987) claimed that “not understanding the
cognitive psychological and psycholinguistic dimensions of communication strategy use, and
focusing only on the surface verbalizations of underlying psychological processes, would lead to
taxonomies of doubtful validity” (Dörnyei and Scott, 1997, p.180). Later in 1993, Poulisse
developed this conceptualization under psychological perspective through her speechproduction model which is inherited by the model of Levelt (1989). As such, she examined the
psycholinguistic analysis of strategic language behavior with a more refined modified processoriented cognitive taxonomy than Faerch and Kasper (1983b) did before.
2.3.2. Characteristics of communication strategies
22
In furtherance of a greater understanding of the notion of communication strategies, the current
literature review attempts to analyze the components of communication strategies. According to
Bialystok (1990),
“communication strategies are undeniable event of language us, their existence is
a reliably documented aspects of communication, and their role in second
language communication seems particularly salient” (p.116).
It is true that there is a variety of different approaches conceptualizing the term of
“communication strategies”; however, most researchers seem to ultimately conclude that two
main components of communication strategies are problematicity and consciousness.
Problematicity
As defined above, communication strategies are considered as language tools used to handle the
communication problem which can lead to interrupted communication (Dörnyei and Scott,
1997). This is because “the original insight into communication strategies was based on a
mismatch between communicative intention and linguistic resources” (Varadi, 1992, p.437). The
term “prolematicity” was used by Bialystok (1984, 1990), additionally, “problem-orientedness”
by Dörnyei and Scott (1997), referred to the fact that when second language speakers recognize
the potential problem which could lead the interrupt of communication, then communication
strategies are used to overcome this. It can be acknowledged that this criteria has become
significant in most research in the field of communication strategies. However, Dörnyei and
Scott (1995a, 1995b) also argued that the consideration of which communication problems under
the term “problematicity” should be taken into account for communication strategies.
23
Accordingly, not all problems in communication could be handled by communication strategies,
and not only “resource deficits” (Dörnyei and Scott, 1997, p.183), one kind of problems was
believed to be solved by communication strategies. In a long discussion, it was determined that
resource deficits could be seen as the “gaps in speaker knowledge preventing them from
verbalizing messages” (Dörnyei and Scott, 1997, p.183). As such, communication strategies are
believed to be used to handle resource deficits. However, if so, this does not reflect the term
“communication strategies” which is named for a various communication problems rather than
just one set of problems. Therefore, researchers extended the term by defining exactly these
following communication problems.
Consequently, researchers introduce the own- performance problems. This type of problems is
when a speaker realizes that what has been said is incorrect or partly correct (Dorney & Scott,
1995a, 1995b; Savignon, 1983; Tarone & Yule, 1987; Willems, 1987). Communication
strategies which are involved in are restructure, self-rephrasing, self-repair, comprehension
check, and verbal strategy maker mechanisms. Secondly, other performance problems are
highlighted within communication strategies. Other-performance problems refer to something
realized from the interlocutor’s speech as problematic. It could be due to the lack of
understanding the message. Communication strategies related to this are other-repair, pretend
understanding, asking for repetition, clarification, confirmation, expressing non-understanding,
guessing (Canale, 1983; Dörnyei&Scott, 1995a, 1995b; Rost & Ross, 1991, Rubin, 1987,
Willems, 1987). The final type is processing time pressure. It is recognized that second language
speakers need more time to plan and process second language speech than it is naturally normal.
Under time pressure, there are communication strategies such as using of fillers and repetition
24
(Canale, 1983; Chen, 1990; Dörnyei& Scott, 1995a, 1995b; Dörnyei& Thurrell, 1991; Rost,
1994; Rost & Ross, 1991, Rubin, 1987, Willems, 198).
Consciousness
According to Dörnyei and Scott (1997), consciousness has become the second component of
defining communication strategies. Nevertheless, there is general dispute as to the validity of this
conclusion. Drawing on the previous work of researchers, these following problems related to
consciousness seem to be mostly significant in defining as the criteria of communication
strategies.
Firstly, there are a variety of different connotations under the term “consciousness”. Schmidt
(1994) indicated that there are four major aspects of consciousness in this context, including
attention, awareness, intentionality, and control. However, Dörnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)
argued that the idea of considering consciousness as a control is not really essential. The authors
additionally expressed that “the automatized strategy” could be considered. The importance of
considering consciousness as awareness was also shown in their research through trying to
distinguish consciousness as awareness of problem and awareness of strategic language use.
Namely, awareness of problem is when second language speakers realize the problems-related
language use in processing (for example, word coinage strategy). In contrast, consciousness as
awareness of strategic language use is about speaker’s realization in doing “a problem related
detour on the way to mutual understanding” (Dörnyei and Scott, 1997, p.185).
In another
25
argument, Bialystok (1990) highlighted that intentionality should be separated from
consciousness to achieve the certain effects.
Secondly, it may be controversial for researchers when discussing the automized elements
related to consciousness to define communication strategies. According to Faerch and Kasper
(1983b, p.35), “consciousness is perhaps more a matter of degree than either-or”. It could be
argued that second language speakers are only conscious when selecting some certain elements
which Gass and Selinker (1994) believed to be automatically high- frequent used. In agreeing
with this view, Bialystok (1990) pointed out that second language learners might use strategies
where there has been no problematicity in communication, and thus automatically (or routinely)
rather than consciously selecting a certain strategy. Interestingly, according to Dörnyei (1995),
one of the purposes of communication strategies training is to enhance the automatization.
Therefore, it suggested that some strategies are “over-learned and seem to drop from
consciousness” (Wiemann and Daly, 1994, p.ix). Moreover, according to Dörnyei and Scott
(1997),
“What was originally an intentional strategy may become in certain situation and/
or with certain indiciduals a highly automatized or fossilized – hence not fully
conscious – device” (p.184).
This phenomenon explains why the term “potentially conscious” was used in Fearch and Kasper
(1983b)’s definition of communication strategies.
26
Distinguish between communication strategies and learning strategies
In the literature, there is a considerable amount of research analyzing the relationship between
communication strategies and learning strategies. It may be somewhat problematic to decide if a
communication strategy could be also deemed as a learning strategy. In an attempt to clarify this
issue, the review looks at the widely-held definition of learning strategies. Namely, learning
strategies are seen as “an attempt to develop linguistic and sociolinguistic competence in the
target language” (Tarone, 1977, p.67). By researching the purpose of strategies, it can be
determined that communication strategies and learning strategies are completely different.
Accordingly, communication strategies focus on an attempt to communicate, while learning
strategies are related to the effort to learn the target language. This view could be illustrated by
the following example. One of strategies mentioned here is repetition. In the case of the fact that
listeners try to repeat the term which has been said by speakers in order to remember and learn
the term, that is to say, learning strategies. On the other hand, repletion will be considered as
communication strategy if one repeat what has been said or what is repaired by the interlocutor
in order to gain time to keep the conversation going on or just as a self- repair mechanism.
However, the problem that remains here is how the purpose is exactly identified in cases.
Therefore, depending on the purpose of strategy that is used, the type of strategy could be
identified. In some certain situations, it is believed that there is an overlap between
communication strategies and learning strategies.
In conclusion, it should not be denied that there are different approaches defining communication
strategies. Drawing on the work of researchers mentioned above, the current research look at
communication strategies as the strategic language devices consciously or automatically used to
27
not only overcome the breakdown in communication, but also “enhance the effectiveness of
communication” (Savignon, 1983, p.11).
2.3.3. Taxonomies of communication strategies
As mentioned above, Tarone (1977) may be viewed as one of the first author providing the
taxonomy of communication strategies. Subsequently, a variety of taxonomies were offered by
other researchers in an attempt to define and clarify communication strategies. There are
different perspectives attempting to conceptualize the term “communication strategies” as
discussed above, which leads the differences of defining taxonomies. However, in spite of this,
similarities could be found among different terminology in taxonomies. As Byalystok (1990)
pointed out that
“the variety of taxonomies proposed in the literature differ primarily in
terminology and overall categorizing principle rather than in the substance of the
taxonomies by abolishing the various overall categories, then a core group of
specific strategies that appear consistently across the taxonomies clearly emerge”
(p.61).
The current review is based on Dörnyei and Scott (1997)’s review which looks at taxonomies by
Bialystok (1983); Dörnyei& Scott (1995a, 1995b); Faerch & Kasper, 1983b; Paribakht (1985);
Tarone (1977); and Willems (1987) and additionally taxonomies by Corder (1981).
28
Similarities
Fearch and Kasper (1983b) defined communication strategies under the firstcategory “reduction
strategies” which is divided into two sections including formal reduction and functional
reduction. The term of “reduction strategies” is also used by Willems (1987) in his taxonomy
while Tarone (1977) offered “avoidance”, instead of and Corder (1981) labeled it as “riskavoidance strategies”. The second option used in most taxonomies is “achievement strategies”.
Both Fearch and Kasper (1983b) and Willems (1987) termed communication strategies under
this label as the second major. In Dörnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)’s taxonomy, this term is
expended to the achievement reduction duality rather than just achievement strategies. Base on
the review by Dörnyei and Scott (1997), taxonomies by Fearch and Kasper (1983b); Tarone
(1977) and Willems (1987) share a basic duality in common. Namely, communication strategies
are used to “ a, to tailor one’s message to one’s resources by altering, reducing, r completely
abandoning the original content; or b, to try and convey the intended message in spite of the
linguistic deficiencies by extending or manipulating the available language system” (Dörnyei&
Scott, 1991, p.195).
Difference
Difference in defining taxonomies in the literature is inevitable because of different approaches
to access as discussed above. This literature review only put the emphasis on Dörnyei and Scott
(1995a, 1995b)’s taxonomy which is believed to be one of the most influential in the literature
29
history and Paribakht (1985) and Nijmegen Group (i.e., Bongaerts, Kellerman, and Poulisse)’s
taxonomies under the psychological perspective.
Dörnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)’s taxonomy
Dörnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b) defined communication strategies according to “the manner of
problem management; that is, how communication strategies contribute to resolving conflicts
and achieving mutual understanding” (Dörnyei& Scott, 1997, p.198). Under this principle, there
are three sections for classifying communication strategies. Firstly, “direct strategies” are seen as
the manageable, self- contained and alternative devices of getting meaning, directly contribute to
solve the problem by compensating. While “indirect strategies seems to “create the conditions
for achieving mutual understanding” (Dörnyei& Scott, 1997, p.198) by using of fillers, strategy
markers, or pretending understanding. The purpose of this type of communication strategies is to
prevent the communication from the interrupt and keep the communication going on. The third
type of communication strategies is interactional strategies. In order to have mutual
understanding between two interlocutors, communicators try to handle the problems
cooperatively by asking for repetition, help, confirmation and explanation, etc.
Paribakht (1985) and Nijmegen Group’s taxonomies
From the psychological perspective, these authors developed their taxonomies in a different way
compared to the rest of other taxonomies. Nijmegen Group and Paribakht (1985) classified into
two main sections which are “conceptual strategies” and “linguistic strategies”. Paribakht (1985)
30
added one more category, that is, “contextual strategies”. Conceptual strategies falling into two
kinds, analytic and holistic, “manipulate the concept sp that it becomes expressible through their
available linguistic resources” (Kellerman, 1991, p.149). Linguistic strategies, on the other hand,
are to “manipulate the speaker’s linguistic knowledge through either morphological creativity or
transfer” (Dörnyei & Scott, 1997, p.200).
2.4.
EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES
The research of “communication strategies” reached at the peak in 1990s; however, it has fallen
down in these recent years while the other phenomenon such as technology’s use in second
language learning and teaching has developed significantly. In spite of the decrease of attention
in the research history in the field of linguistics, communication strategy research has played an
important role in contributing to second language learning and teaching. Therefore, a significant
amount of study has been carried out on communication strategies. This review only focuses on
those employed by learners of English.
2.4.1. Research on communication strategies employed by learners of English.
Empirical studies emphasis on investigating the role of communication strategies in the second
language instruction and practice. Some have examined on the frequency or popularity of which
type of communication as second language speakers. Others have focused on how second
31
language learners communicate by using communication strategies and its effectiveness in
communication. A little amount of research has been undertaken to compare the use of
communication strategies of native and non- native speakers. The following are findings which
have came out from other research in this case so far.
Firstly, communication strategy’s role has been considered in the empirical studies in term of
communication strategies. Communication strategies are essential and effective devices used to
not only overcome the communication problems because of linguistic deficiency or other
resources, but also enhance the effectiveness of communication (Dobao & Martínez, 2007;
Savignon, 1983; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011). The latter role also reflects the findings that
communication strategies contribute to their fluency with what they already process. As "other
strategies - such as paraphrase or adjusting the message (self-repair) may not help the learners to
expand their repertoire, but help them to become fluent with what they already possess".
(Littlewood, 1984, p.87). Besides negotiating meaning, keeping communication channel open is
one of the completely crucial roles of communication strategy’s use (Dobao & Martínez, 2007).
According to Hatch (1972), the most important one is to encourage second language learners not
to give up.
Second of all, researchers have focused on communication strategy’s fluency when conducting
studies related to this term. “The lower the competence in target language, the greater the
dependence on communication strategies” (Dobao & Martínez, 2007, p.295; Terrell, 1977).
Additionally, reduction strategies have been used more frequently than achievement strategies
(Dobao & Martínez, 2007; Littlemore, 2003; & Moattarian, 2012). However, Littlemore (2003)
32
extended that the most likely effective strategies are literal mechanisms. The last significant
aspect of communication strategy research is communication strategy’s context. Namely, the
context whereby learners’ knowledge and ability in communication in the first language will
affect their ability in using communication strategies in second language. It’s also related to
learners’ communicative ability. (Dobao & Martínez, 2007; Bou-Franch, 1994, & Moattarian,
2012).
2.4.2. Review of research on Vietnamese refugees and immigrants in the field
of communication strategies in United Kingdom
Look back the literature, there is a barely amount of communication strategies of Vietnamese
learners of English so far in spite of its long history. However, the research only focuses on
teaching communication strategies in academic environment, and that, participants are
Vietnamese learners as English major students who have a good background of English (Bui &
Intaraprasert, 2013 & Le, 2006). In this case, the finding came out that teaching communication
strategies might improve and enhance learners’ fluency in language use (Le, 2006). The research
has been done so far in Vietnam while it seems to be hard to find any study of Vietnamese
refugees and immigrants in Britain, especially in Vietnam. Even research on refugees and
immigrants in general undertaken in Britain is not a significant number. It is true that language is
one of the challenges and forced element to learn for refugees and immigrants because of
inevitably important role. However, studies on language learning for refugees and immigrants
33
focus on other aspects of language such as how to teach them effectively, what challenges they
might face rather than communication strategies as Tully (2006).
Through reviewing the literature review so far, as awareness of the role of communication
strategies in the theory of applied linguistics, the importance of language on communication in
the Vietnamese refugees and immigrants in Britain, as well as, the lack of research on this aspect
on Vietnamese refugees and immigrants. It is added that this research is conducted as a case
study of two cases in personal contexts. Therefore, it might not be clear to how universal the
results are for other refugees and immigrants who have different backgrounds and educational
experiences. Therefore, the research will be undertaken in order to answer theses following
research questions:
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1.
How do Vietnamese refugees and immigrants in the Manchester context use
communication strategies?
2.
What differences are there in the use of communication strategies between effective and
less-effective second language speakers in the Vietnamese refugee and immigrant community?
34
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
3.1.
RESEARCH GOALS
The current investigation has two main goals. Firstly, the research aims to determine how
Vietnamese refugees and immigrants use the communication strategies by examining
participants’ frequency of using communication strategies. Secondly, this study investigates the
difference of communication strategies’ use between the apparently effective communicator and
the less effective one.
3.2.
METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS
3.2.1. Case study
It should not be denied that qualitative research conducted in education, especially in applied
linguistics, has increased in recent years. According to Duff (2008), qualitative research
emphasizes the importance of interpreting phenomenon in context. These contexts tend to be
naturally occurring ones, or being arranged for research purposes. In comparison with
quantitative research, qualitative research involves a small number of participants, which may be
hard to generalize the findings. However, Denzin and Lincoln (2005) indicated that qualitative
research offers a better understanding of the subject matter, allowing conducting detailed and in-
35
depth investigation of single cases. Qualitative research approach commonly used is case study.
A case study is described as
“ the in-depth study of instances of a phenomenon in its natural context and from
the perspective of the participants involved in the phenomenon” (Gall, 2003,
p.436).
In an attempt to define the term “case study”, Duff (2008) expressed that a case study is designed
to explore and describe phenomenon; building theory, illustrating, and explaining theoretical
insights. In term of applied linguistics, case study offers a wide range of learners, and generates
detailed accounts of the process, factors associated with language learning, and language use.
Issues addressed could be pragmatics, attitudes and motivation, anxiety, learning strategies Duff
(2008). Case study is conducted to investigate a variety of issues in applied linguistics, because it
provides “a high degree of completeness, depth of analysis, and readability” (Duff, 2008, p.43).
Therefore, in an attempt to explore how refugees and immigrants as language learners of English
use communication strategies effectively or less effectively, case study of two specific cases
could be the appropriate method which is believed to provide the more detailed and in-depth
results. However, the consideration should be mentioned here is that the case study is conducted
in personal contexts which might not be generalisable for other Vietnamese refugees and
immigrants’ situations.
3.2.2. The study
The current research which was decided to be undertaken as a case study because most studies
on communication strategies have been conducted with large groups of learners such as surveys
36
conducted by Dobao & Martínez (2007), Le (2006), and Sato (2005). A case study of two
selected participants provides a thorough picture of individual experiences. Research carried out
in personal contexts might not be generalisable. Nevertheless, it allows accessing the issue more
in-depth, which might be hard to be discovered by questionnaire surveys. The case study was
also intended to provide detailed insights into communication strategies’ use by refugees and
immigrants. The majority of research focuses on learners of English in schools or universities
such as Bui & Intaraprasert (2013), Le (2006), and Tully (2013). Therefore, the researcher
decided to conduct the study on refugees and immigrants who use English for the wider
communication purposes rather than academic goals, which enables to researcher to have a
panoramic view of communication strategies’ use on various subjects.
The taxonomy used in the research
The taxonomy used in the research is mainly based on Dörnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)’s
taxonomy. By classifying communication strategies into three main sections as mentioned above,
the taxonomy seems to be suitable for the research’s aim to investigate how Vietnamese refugees
and immigrants use communication to directly or indirectly solve the language problems.
However, there are some difference between the original taxonomy and the current one. First of
all, not all of categories are used in this taxonomy. Some of them are believed to be similar;
therefore, just one term is used (for example, restructure and self-repair). Secondly, topic
avoidance is separated from message reduction. The reason of this separation is the reflection of
message reduction is to leave out intended key words because of some language difficulties
while topic avoidance is believed to be avoiding topic or changing the topic when non-
37
understanding occurs in communication. Thirdly, three strategies are added which are over –
emphasis, over-using interrogative fragment and keep going the conversation. The table below
shows the taxonomy used in the study with analysis codes.
DIRECT STRATEGIES: DIRECT STRATEGY
Code
Strategies
Description
DS/MA
Message abandonment
Leaving a target message unfinished because
of language difficulties
DS/ MR
Message
Reduction
DS/ MRP
Message Replacement
Leaving out intended key words because of
some language difficulty
Substituting the intended message of the
new one because of a lack of linguistic
resources.
DS/ PP
Paraphrasing
Describing the intended message or the
target object.
DS/ TA
Topic avoidance
Avoiding topic or changing the topic when
non-understanding occurs in communication
DS/ LT
Literal translation
Translating literally a compound/ structure
from L1 to L2.
DS/ IT
Interlingual Transfer
Using
a
L2
word/
phrase
with
L1
pronunciation or morphology or vice versa
DS/ UoL1
Use of L1 words
Using L1 words to fill the gap where a
message is incomplete.
DS/ UoP
Use of all purpose words
Using “thing, stuff, make, do, what – doyou – call – it “ where specific items are
lacking
DS/ RT
Retrieval
Saying a series of incomplete or wrong
forms or structures until reaching the
38
optimal form.
DS/ SR
Self repair
Making self- initiated corrections in their
speech.
DS/OR
Other repair
Correcting the items which are corrected by
interlocutor.
DS/OE
Over-emphasis
Over-emphasis of language feature for
clarity.
DS/ OIF
Over-using Interrogative
fragment
Over- using the interrogative fragment like
“tag”.
INDIRECT STRATEGIES: IDS
Code
Strategies
Description
IDS/ UoF
Using of fillers
Use of gambits to fill the pauses in order to
gain time, carry on the conversation
IDS/ RP
Repetition
Repeating a word or a string of words
immediately after they were said.
IDS / ORP
Other repetition
Repeating something the interlocutor said to
gain time.
IDS /PU
Pretend understanding
Pretending understand to carry on the
conversation.
IDS /KG
Keep going the
conversation.
Carrying on the topic until reaching the
target object
INTERACTIONAL STRATEGIES: IRS
Code
Strategies
Description
IRS/ AfH
Appeal for Help
Trying to elicit help from the interlocutor either
verbally or nonverbally
IRS/AfR
Asking for Repetition
Requesting repetition when not hearing or
understanding
IRS/ AfC
Asking for Confirmation Requesting
confirmation
that
one
heard
39
correctly or guessed correctly
IRS/ AfE
Asking for explanation
Requesting explanation of the word or structure
not understood.
Table 1: Taxonomy based on Dörnyei and Scott (1995a, 1995b)
3.3.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
As the investigation described in this paper focuses on two participants, this section gives rise to
ethical issues. First of all, the ethical considerations with anonymity, informed consent and
confidentiality and data store are considered. Therefore, those participants were provided full
information in order to have good comprehension of what the project was and what the project’s
purpose before they agreed to take part in. A consent form was necessary to be signed in case
study research. It was translated into Vietnamese in order to make sure they understand all the
agreements in the form.
Another ethical challenge is that considerable details and contextualization about participants
might be difficult to protect or participants might want to hide some information related to
privacy; therefore, the researcher might change or withhold data which could compromise the
confidentiality of the study. The audio records of conversation were stored safely after the
research if having permission from participants; otherwise, they were destroyed after the
research.
40
One of the ethical issues could be considered in this research is about the relationship between
the researchers and participants. They might accept to participate in the research just because of
the friendship with the researcher which might lead them to find out that they are not as good at
English as they thought. However, both of participants in this research had a willingness to learn
English and really want to participate in the research which findings might help them to improve
their English. In spite of this, the informed consent forms would stress the ability to leave the
study anytime.
3.4.
SUBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION
3.4.1. Sampling procedures
In order to select participants for the research, two sampling strategies were used, including
“criterion sampling” and “convenience sampling”. First of all, participants who were selected
met “specific predetermined criteria” (Dörnyei, 2007, p.128) (reference). Firstly, the participants
had to be Vietnamese refugees or immigrants who do not have much experience with high
education before coming to England. As refugees and immigrants who are students or highskilled workers have better background in English rather than the others (Seufert, 1999).
Secondly, two participants had to meet the requirement of the stay length in England
approximately. Thirdly, participants taking part in the current research had to be tested in order
to identify if they are effective or less-effective in communication. The term “successful or
41
effective language learner” is identified by a variety of researchers. According to McDonough
and Shaw (2003),
“Success is thought to be based on such factors as checking one’s performance in
a language, being willing to guess and to ‘take risks’ with both comprehension
and production, seeking out opportunities to practice, developing efficient
memorizing strategies, and many others” (p.56).
The researcher can consider if the participant is effectively or less-effectively communicated by
daily observation based on experience of working with each participant as a teacher. Second of
all, the “convenience sampling” was used to select the participants for the study. The potential
participants were selected because both of them met the criteria such as availability at a certain
time, easy accessibility and willingness to attend.
3.4.2. The participants
The current study investigated the use of communication strategies on two participants. Firstly,
the first participant (P1) is a 35 years old female. She works as a nail technician in Manchester
for 10 years. Although she can not make a speech in a good grammar after having lived in
England for such long time, she can communicate and express her ideas with native speakers
fluently and express. Therefore, I believe she might be considered as a successful situation in
using communication strategies.
The second participant (P2) is the 32 year old male, working as the nail technician in
Manchester for 7 years. He lives with his Vietnamese wife and two children. He used to attend
42
English class with other refugees three days a week. However, his English hasn’t been improved
much. He can only speak the speech which he has prepared before and finds it difficult to
communicate with native speakers in daily life.
3.5.
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
3.5.1. Audio-recording
Data collection
The purpose of the study is to investigate the communication strategies’ use in actual life. Thus,
the main data collected in this investigation is audio- recordings of actual conversations with the
help of follow up interviews. The investigation started with video- recording for P1. However,
because P2 changed his mind during the procedure of collecting data, the study had to change to
audio-recordings instead of video-recordings which were decided to use before. Audiorecordings were collected in interpersonal and transactional contexts. It is true that one of
language learners’ important aims is to communicate for interpersonal and transactional
purposes. According to Nunan (1992), interactional talk is communicating with someone for
social purpose in order to establish and maintain social interaction. Topics in interpersonal talk
are non-controversial such as weekend, school, work, weather, and holiday. In this case, the
interpersonal context is in nail salons. As discussed above, another essential communication skill
is the ability of using English to accomplish different kinds of transactions such as check in into
43
a hotel, ordering food, buying something in a store. This type of talk involves communicating to
get something done rather than maintaining social relationship. Both types of speech were
investigated in the current research, because learners have to speak English in both interpersonal
and transactional contexts in daily communication.
First of all, the researcher recorded five conversations between the participants and customers in
their nail salon for the interpersonal talk purpose. Customer’s permission was given before
recording. Secondly, in order to investigate the communication strategies’ use in the
transactional context. Two participants were told to do two communication tasks and audiorecording was taken during the process. The first task is that the participants had to find out how
to get to the target place, a French restaurant by asking for direction on street. Both participants
began at the same start and destination. The researcher took audio recording while the
participants were asking for directions.
Another task is to record the conversation between the participants and native speaker in the
transactional context. One place had to be chosen among these potential places including
museum, travel agent, accommodation agent and council. However, travel and accommodation
agents were believed that the participants might not have chance to keep the conversation open
because they might be introduced information by leaflets while it was hard to get permission to
record in council. Therefore, the researcher decided to choose Manchester central museum for
the task. Namely, the researcher introduced seven galleries in museum and gave P2 a choice of
one of them which he was interested in with the aim of motivating the less effective participant
to involve in speaking English. His decision is money gallery. P2 was told to speak with gallery
44
guider to find out information about money. The conversation between him and the staff in
gallery was recorded. It was undertaken the same with P2. However, it was considered that if P1
should be given choice of any gallery in museum like P2. However, focusing on the aim of
research, the researcher decided to give P1 equal context in term of engagement of speaking
English. Thus, P1 had to do task in the same gallery, money gallery. Because the purpose of the
study is to investigate how the effective and less effective participants use communication
strategies; therefore, if it is conducted in the same situation, it would enable the researcher to
analyze data in comparison the results.
Data analysis
The audio recordings were transcribed (see table X for transcription features) and then analyzed.
Analysis codes were introduced in the taxonomy above. During transcription procedure, three
codes were added to describe the communication strategies which hadn’t been in the taxonomy
before. The coding used on the transcriptions appears in the order in which features are seen in
each line. For example, in this line, “Um oh (…) where they in the church (yeh)?”, The code is
analyzed in order “INDIRECT STRATEGY/UoF for “ah oh oh”, and DIRECT STRATEGY/ PP
for “where they in the church?”. From the recording data, the frequency of the use of
communication strategies was calculated by times of being used and percentage of total use..
After analyzing data collected from audio- recordings, the follow- up interview was conducted to
find out more details, focusing on the specific issues discovered from the analysis of the task
recordings.
45
3.5.2. Interview
Data collection
According to Duff (2008), interview plays an important role in research in applied linguistics;
therefore, it is commonly used in case study. A research interview is defined as a construction or
joint production by interviewee and interviewer (Coughlan & Duff, 1994; & Mishler, 1986). In
order to find out more details about specific issues from the analysis of task recordings, followup interview was undertaken to each participant. The current research attempts to investigate
how P1 and P2 use CSs and what differences there are. The analysis from task recordings
provides different use of CSs by each participant; therefore, interview questions are different,
which is based on specific issues. Both participants were individually interviewed by mobile
phone and audio-recorded. According to Duff (2008), qualitative research interviews could be
conducted face to face or telephone if it is hard to arrange meeting times and places. Interviews
were taken in Vietnamese, because it is easier for them to express their ideas in the first
language. The interview questions below were used to explore issue which emerged from task
recordings.
P1 – Interview questions
P2- Interview questions
Talking about the use of literal translation Talking about the use of interlingual transfer
strategy:
strategy:
-
-
Do you often literally translate when
speaking English?
Do you have any difficulties in
pronouncing English?
46
-
Have you known the structure of
-
“have/get something done” in English
before? How is it used?
-
How do you think if you are taught to
pronounce English sounds properly?
-
Do you know you have to use prep “to”
How would you react if listener doesn’t
understand what you have said?
with “speak”, instead of “speak with”?
-
Which one do you focus on when you
speak English? Between accuracy or
fluency?
Talking about over-emphasis strategy
-
Why did you emphasize the sound /s/ in words
-
your speech?
-
Talking about the use of using all-purpose
when you speak English?
Could you give me an example of that?
-
Talking
about
over-using
interrogative
fragment strategy
-
How often do you use this word “thing”
If you want to express an action which
you don’t know proper verb to express,
how would you say?
When do you use “ISN’T IT” in your
speech?
-
Did you use it to ask for information in
that situation? If not, could you say
something more about this?
47
Talking about Asking for confirmation strategy
Talking about Asking for confirmation strategy
-
Why didn’t you ask for confirmation in
-
Why didn’t you ask for confirmation in
that situation?
that situation?
What would you do if you don’t understand
What would you do if you don’t understand what has been said by native speaker?
what has been said by native speaker?
Data analysis
Because the interview was taken in order to find out more detailed and in-depth explanation
associated with issues which were discovered from analysis of task recordings, interviews were
translated from Vietnamese into English after being transcribed without coding.
3.6.
PILOTING THE RESEARCH
According to Dörnyei (2007), it is essential to pilot research instruments and procedures before
they are actually used in practice, which contributes the high quality of the outcomes. In this
48
case, task-recordings and interviews are recorded by an audio-recorder. The quality of recorder
was carefully checked before it was used. Additionally, a friend of the researcher volunteered to
take part in the pilot study. To be more specific, a volunteer had to go to museum and did
direction task with the researcher before conducting the study.
3.7.
RELIABILITY
In order to increase reliability of the study, task-recordings’ transcriptions were coded by
researcher’s lecturer in university in Vietnam by email. Codes were agreed 90%. The lecturer
suggested one new strategy. However, the frequency of the use of this strategy is a small
number, the researcher decided not to use this in the current research. Additionally, some codes
were suggested to change. It is noted that the use of CSs is somewhat ambiguous in some
situations; therefore, some codes were decided to change or not, depending the follow-up
interview data.
The findings and results were also checked with both participants.
3.8.
CONCLUSION
The above chapter presented the aim of the research, described the sampling procedures
employed to select participants for the research and portray the selected participants. Moreover,
this chapter also mentioned the possible ethical issues and detailed the methodology instruments
49
and procedure used in the current study. The data analysis with taxonomy and analysis code was
presented. The following chapter shows about the findings and discussion of communication
strategies’ use.
50
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1.
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings and the discussion of the communication strategies’ use
employed by participants in the current research. The structure of this chapter will be divided
into two main sections based on finding out the answer for the research questions. Each of the
sections details data gathered with the help of the instruments used in the investigation.
Therefore, there might be an overlap among discussions of each section.
In the first part, the data collected from audio-recordings of participant’s completion of tasks are
analyzed from different angles. The main way to deal with data in this research is frequency
number by comparing usage’s times and percentage of total use. There are three uses of
percentage in this analysis. Firstly, it is percentage of the total of each group’s use. As mentioned
above, there are three groups including direct strategies, indirect strategies, and interactional
strategies. The second one is the percentage of the total of overall CSs’ use, and the third one is
the total of use in context. Consider the example below.
Code
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of DIRECT
Total of CS (%)
Total of use (%)
0.97
1.13
STRATEGY (%)
DIRECT
4
3.01
STRATEGY/MA
51
This table shows that the strategy of message abandonment (DIRECT STRATEGY/MA) is used
4 times, taking the proportion of 3,01% of the total of direct strategies’ use; 0,97% of the total of
overall communication strategies’ use, and 1,13 % of the total of use in conversation.
Results start with the overall level of CSs’ use, which allows us to have a general view of the
difference. After that, it will be made a discussion between the different groups of strategies, as
well as different frequency levels within each group. The researcher is going to discuss the
significant numbers of the strategies’ usage by both participants by analyzing excerpts selected
from the audio-recordings transcriptions with the help of the follow- up interview data. Examples
of using strategies will be in bold in excerpts.
4.2.
How do Vietnamese refugees and immigrants in the Manchester context
use communication strategies?
In an attempt to answer this research question, the researcher provides a general view of CSs’
use by each participant, and details some of significant CSs to analyze how P1 and P2 use in
specific contexts.
4.2.1. The effective learner – P1
52
General view
The tables 2 and 3 provide the summary statistics for learner’s frequency of each group of
communication strategies in the context of interpersonal and transactional talk, respectively.
Strategies
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of strategies
Total of use
(%)
(%)
DIRECT STRATEGY
133
43.18
37.57
INDIRECT STRATEGY
158
52.30
44.63
INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY
17
5.52
4.80
Table 2: Frequency of CS’s use in interpersonal talk by effective learner
Strategies
Times
Percentage/
Percentage
Total of strategies
Total of use
(%)
(%)
DIRECT STRATEGY
48
33.11
24.24
INDIRECT STRATEGY
81
55.86
40.91
INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY
16
11.03
8.08
Table 3: Frequency of CS’s use in transactional talk by effective learner
It can be seen from the data in the table 2 that the DIRECT STRATEGY group and INDIRECT
STRATEGY group reported approximately with the number of 44,63% and 37,57% of total of
use, respectively. While this number of the other group, interactional strategy, is only 4,80%. In
comparison with the table 3 which shows the frequency of communication strategy’s use in
53
transactional conversation, although indirect strategy group is approximately double compared to
direct strategy group, both these groups still take the significant proportion of total with 40,91%
and 24,24% respectively. The proportion of interactional strategy group in the transactional talk
increases with 8.08%. As mentioned above, these tables are an overview of the data. In order to
discuss these numbers further, looking at the significant aspects of the details from data is
necessary before turning to these statistics.
Literal translation
In the context of interpersonal conversation, one of the most striking results to emerge from the
data is the dominant number of a strategy of literal translation with 40 times of being used.
Literal translation strategy takes the second largest proportion of 12,99% of total of strategies
used in interpersonal context. The results of the correlation analysis are presented in Table 4.
Strategy
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of DSs
Total of CSs
Total of use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Message abandonment
4
3.01
0.97
1.13
Message Reduction
8
6.02
2.60
2.26
Message Replacement
6
4.51
1.95
1.70
Paraphrasing
12
9.02
3.90
3.39
Topic avoidance
3
2.26
0.97
0.85
Literal translation
40
30.08
12.99
11.30
Interlingual Transfer
5
3.76
1.62
0.85
Use of L1 words
0
0
0
0
54
Use of all purpose words
9
6.77
2.92
2.54
Retrieval
1
0.75
0.32
0.28
Self repair
10
7.52
3.25
2.82
Other repair
2
1.50
0.65
0.56
Over - emphasis
15
11.28
4.87
4.24
Over-using Interrogative
19
14.29
6.17
3.95
fragment
Table 4: Frequency of DIRECT STRATEGY’s use in interpersonal talk by effective learner
This strategy was frequently used in P1’s interpersonal data, which could be illustrated by
excerpt below:
Excerpt 1:
Line 1: P1: I think yeah (.) “oh” Now yeah. your natural nailS: a bit longer. (1.0) but I thinking
Line 2: they will be (1) will SLIP ((action of nails being taken off)) easy. Because I feeling they
Line 3: really SOFT in here ((pointed at the nails)). So I think now I do like this. >I< cut all your
Line 4: reo /reo/ ((Vietnamese pronunciation)) real nail off.
Line 5: CUS: yeah yeah.
Line 6: P1: And I put clear tip. And after that I paint the color like my. “And” in [three week
later]
Line 7: CUS: Right.
Line 8: P1: “Three week later”, you infill. When they come the gap ((pointed at the gap
between
Line 9: customer’s real nails and fake nails) like before. (.) You infill and then painting the
Line 10: colour. It’s that better and save your money as well.
55
This excerpt of conversation is a good illustration for using literal translation from the
participant’s first language. P1 used this strategy again in line 8 by “you infill” and even “when
they come the gap”. It is apparent that there is not the structure “have something done” with the
meaning something’s done for the speaker by someone else in Vietnamese. The verb used by the
first person or the second person could be understood as having the same meaning. Looking at
this strategy in this line could illustrate this view. Firstly, in Vietnamese, it’s said that “you
infill” rather than “you have it infilled”.
Consider also excerpt 2.
Excerpt 2:
Line 1: P1: You want to do nails?
Line 2: Cus: Yeah. Would you be able to do my nails?
Line 3: P1: yeah of course.
The participant used the utterance “You want to do nails?” instead of “You want to have your
nails done ?”. Conversely, if the latter is said in this situation, it will sound strange in
Vietnamese. It could be noted that literally, P1 and customers use different structures which
should be understood differently; however, it does not interrupt the conversation, and the target
communication is still conveyed effectively.
A third useful illustration of this use is the following excerpt 3.
Excerpt 3:
56
Line 1: CUS: We should have translator over here, well free really should not they?
Line 2: P1: yeah I can. But like (2.0) sometimes I do not understand what they say. BUT
Line 3: sometimes I can learn mouth to mouth ((move hand)), like “oh” when I speak with
Line4: you, I can learn from you.
“Mouth to mouth” is translated literally. P1 meant this by learning by communication, which is
“BẰNG MIỆNG” in Vietnamese. Additionally, the participant used “speak with” instead of
“speak to” because “with” can be used with all verbs in Vietnamese in order to express the action
happing with someone. Taking about this issue, the interviewee said:
“If I think it’s easy for me to express my ideas, I will try to speak accurately.
Sometimes, I forgot it, I meant when I speak fluently. But I think I have problem
now, because I thought these words could be used in this situation. It’s really hard
to pay attention on grammar when you talk.” (P1- Interview – Translated from
Vietnamese)
There are two reasons which could be explained for this issue according to data analysis above.
Firstly, it depends on the situation whereby conversation occurs and the intention of using CSs.
If the situation seems to be easy with the linguistic resources needed, the participant will be
consciously aware of accuracy in her speech in an attempt to improve her English. However, the
more confident the participant is, the more fluently she speaks English, and the more frequently
the literal translation is used. This finding supports Nilsson (2012) that when learners have to
keep in mind the accuracy aspect, it could break fluency in communication. In this case, the
usage of literal translation strategy indicates that although P1 tries to focus on accuracy at the
beginning, she tends to change focus on fluency in order to keep communication channel open.
57
According to Karjalainen (2008), the use of communication strategies and learning strategies
depends on the learners’ intention to communicate a meaning or focus on development of
language skills. He suggested that learners tend to use CSs to promote the interaction between
partners, because focus on literacy might cause a break in fluency. In this case, it is considered
that P1 uses the literal translation strategy to promote fluency in communication, and it is
supposed that she might use different CS if she focused on accuracy in this situation. As
Littlewood (1984) pointed out that "communication strategies may not help the learners to
expand their repertoire, but help them to become fluent with what they already possess" (p.87). It
comes to conclusion that the intention of using CSs is influenced by a focus on accuracy or
fluency in communication.
Considering this issue from different view found out from interview data, P1is not aware of the
fact that she is using literal translation strategy because of the first language’s influence. Thus,
she unconsciously uses this strategy rather than deciding to use it on purpose. This again
supports Gass and Selinker (1994) that CSs are also believed to be automatically used rather than
used in control according to Schmidt (1994).
The strategies of over-emphasis and over-using interrogative fragment
Two of three additional strategies are over-emphasis and over-using interrogative fragment such
as question tag. These types of strategies play an important role in considering how the
participants communicate by using it. As can be seen from table 4 above, both strategies have the
high percentage of usage, after literal translation in total of direct strategies, which is overemphasis with 11.28% and over-using interrogative fragment with 14.29%.
58
Strategy
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of DSs
Total of CSs
Total of use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Message abandonment
1
2.08
0.69
0.51
Message Reduction
0
0
0
0
Message Replacement
0
0
0
0
Paraphrasing
4
8.33
2.76
2.02
Topic avoidance
3
6.25
2.06
1.52
Literal translation
2
4.17
1.38
1.01
Interlingual Transfer
5
10.42
3.45
2.53
Use of L1 words
0
0
0
0
Use of all purpose words
8
16.67
5.52
4.04
Retrieval
4
8.33
2.76
2.02
Self repair
6
12.5
4.14
3.03
Other repair
3
6.25
2.06
1.52
Over - emphasis
10
20.83
6.90
5.05
Over-using Interrogative
2
4.17
1.38
1.01
fragment
Table 5: Frequency of DIRECT STRATEGY’s use in transactional talk by effective learner
Data from the table 4 can be compared with data from table 5 which shows the frequency of
DIRECT STRATEGY’s use in transactional talk by P1. In table 5, the number of the strategy’s
use of over-emphasis is quite significant with the largest number, 20,83% of total of DIRECT
STRATEGY. The analysis discusses each of these two strategies in detail below.
59
Over- emphasis strategy
Interestingly, the data collected from P1 shows the issue of over-emphasis of the final consonant
in her speech. The consonant mostly over-emphasized is /s/. The participant demonstrated that:
“The final sound is really important in English. When I learned English in
Vietnam, it wasn’t mentioned in any lesson of pronunciation. We just focused on
how to pronounce the main sounds with the omission of the final consonants.
When I came here, I found it really difficult to make the local understand what I
said. It took me a long time to realize that I had to pronounce the final sound.
There are two final consonants which are the most popular ones in English and
those are emphasized most clearly by native speakers, which are /s/ and /k/. For
example: Mil/k/, wee/k/, friend/S/, I think.”. (P1- Interview- Translated from
Vietnamese)
The following examples are illustrated to investigate how P1 over-emphasized as discussed
above. Consider the excerpt 4.
Excerpt 4:
Line 1: P1: It (will be) nice. Your friend live over there ? Live in Philippines ?
Line 2: CUS: No she lives here, her family are still over here.
Line 3: P1: “Oh” she’s Philippine lady ? Like my. Vietnamese lady ?
Line 4: CUS: Yeah yeah.
Line 5: P1. “oh yeah” so now she just comes /s/ here,
60
Line 6: P1: [[ and fu (.) future she goes /s/ over there.
Line 7: CUS: [[ She married an English man and she’s been over here for about 20 years.
This example is really interesting, because as can be seen, P1 over-emphasized the consonants /s/
in both words “comes” in line 5 and “goes” in line 6. However, it’s right in the case of “comes”.
The latter word “goes” should be pronounced /ɡəʊz/ rather than /ɡəʊs/. P2’s view about the final
sounds could be considered accurate in term of pronunciation; however, it’s somewhat
unsuccessful. Since not all words ending with consonant “s” is pronounced /s/. Namely, the
ending is pronounced /s/ after a voiceless sound, /z/ after a voiced sound, and /iz/ after a sibilant
sound. Therefore, her insufficient knowledge about this phenomenon causes her to use overemphasize strategy. However, to be fair, it is true that Vietnamese does not contain words ending
with consonants, which makes learners confused with the final consonants. Therefore, naturally,
they tend to omit most of them. Compare with the excerpt below.
Excerpt 5:
Line 1: P1: Your family wedding or some friendS /S/ ?
Line 2: CUS: This summer. (The customer might misunderstand participant’s question)
Line 3: P1. Ah oh oh (2.0) where they start ?
Line 4: CUS: Pardon?
Line 5: P1: Um oh (…) where they in the church (yeh) ?
Line 6: CUS: Ah Albion Church, in Stamford.
Line 7: P1: Yeah (..) so how many dressS ((/s/)) you
change ?
61
In this example, P1 pronounced /s/ in “friends” instead of the proper sound /z/ in line 1. And it is
the same with “dresses” in line 7 when she pronounced /s/ instead of /iz/. In this case, the
participant is aware of the importance of the final sound when pronouncing and tries to speak
English properly as she said in the interview:
“Whenever the words contain the letter ‘s’, it means that it must be pronounced
this sound /s/ clearly, especially, the plural form of nouns and the verb’s form
with /s/. This is one of things I have to remember, and I try to remember before I
speak anything with these words, because I want to speak English properly.” (P1Interview- Translated from Vietnamese)
This again supports the finding above that P1 starts using CSs in an attempt to focus on
accuracy in communication. However, she did not realize that she over-used it because of
her insufficient knowledge of linguistics items. The phrase “the letter/s/” in her interview
is emphasized, because this shows what P1 is based on to pronounce a word. It could be
seen that P1 pronounces /s/ by looking at the letter “s” rather than connecting it with
other sounds in the words. As P1 said, not only the final sound ending with “s”, but also
its presence in the middle of words, it has to be pronounced clearly. This could be
illustrated by looking at the following example.
Excerpt 6: (From transactional talk. CP: Conversation partner)
Line 1: P1: Some people tell me find to Deangate (without /S/).
Line 2: CP: Deansgate ?
Line 3: P1: Yeah yeah. Dean/S/gate. (( Laugh))
62
Excerpt 7:
Line 1: P1: My friend said near Deangate ((without /s/) (1.0). Dean...(1.0) Dean/S:/ (.) gate.
Line 2: Something like that.
Line 3: CP: Are you looking for Deansgate ?
Line 4: P1: Yeah yeah. Where about Dea:n/S/gate ? Do you know ?
It is true that one of the significantly common errors committed by Vietnamese learners of
English is omitting some sounds occurring in the middle of words, because such occurrence is an
unfamiliar phonetic phenomenon. To be more specific, Vietnamese is described as syllabletimed language (Nguyen, 1970) whereas English is stress-timed language. According to Tran
(1980), it is a challenge for speakers of syllable-timed languages to “get the hang of stress
timing, so this feature will persist, strengthening the staccato rhythm of Vietnamese English”
(p.427). In this case, because of P1’s attempt to speak English properly and have good
communication, she tries to emphasize it; however, it’s over- emphasis because of the lack of
proper knowledge of linguistic resources.
Over-using interrogative fragment
Question tags are commonly used in spoken English by native speakers. In communication, a
question tag could be used to request information politely, confirm what has been said, or just a
way to start a conversation and/ or keep it moving. The rule is that the sentence is finished with a
negative tag after a positive statement, and vice versa, using the main verb (if there is no
auxiliary) or the first auxiliary verb (if there is an auxiliary). However, the participant in this case
63
study seems to over-use by emphasizing the only form of “IS IT” for every situation with
question tag. Looking at this following example, it shows the way how P1 use the question tag in
order to maintain good communication.
Excerpt 8:
Line 1: P1: “Ah.”How many do you have?
Line 2: CUS: six all together
Line 3: P1: WOW ! ((Laughing)) It’s fun, IS IT ?
Line 4: CUS: Yeah. But they like to fight to each other.
Line 5: P1: Yeah. Are you take them (.) go anywhere ?
Line 6: CUS: No.
Line 7: P1: Yeah. Just spend time together, IS IT ?
Line 8: CUS: Well. They’ve got little friends around us
Line 9: P1: But they younger, it’s easy. (.) But when they teenager/S:/ so you can NOT control
Line 10: on them. Yeah. All the time – they go what (1.0.) they go, where they go and they do
Line 11: what they want, IS IT ?
It can be seen that P1 used “IS IT” for most situations improperly. For example, it should be
“ISN’T IT” rather than “IS IT” in line 3, and it occurs similarly in other cases, such as the proper
form should be “DOESN’T IT” in line 7, and “DON’T THEY” in line 11 as well. Continuingly,
in the excerpt 9 below, P1 used “IS IT” in line 1 instead of the right form “ISN’T IT”, and
“DON’T YOU” in line 6.
64
Excerpt 9:
Line 1: CUS: We’ve been friends now for 18 years
Line 2: P1: Eighteen? WOW! It’s that long, IS IT?
Line 3: CUS: We have those things yeah, we share to each other.
Line 4: P1: So now like sister, sister.
Line 5: P1: Sometimes yeah, same (plus) but hard for them to make friends together. And when
Line 6: you see someone else different (plus), but you get on very well, IS IT?
Line 7: CUS: Yeah. Sometimes I can tell what she is about to say.
Talking about this issue with the participant, the reason given for this use is similar to the use of
over-emphasis strategy discussed above. That is because her knowledge of this language item is
not sufficient rather than saying that she misunderstands it. The comment below illustrates this
view.
“Actually I never heard of this structure (question tag) when I learned English in
secondary school in Vietnam long time ago. When I first came here, speaking to
native speakers, I thought they used this after each statement when they wanted to
change from statement to question. I started to try using it in communication after
that, and I thought it worked, that is, they understood what I said better. I use it to
make listener understand more, and when I want to have attention from them.
((laugh)).” (P1- Interview – Translated from Vietnamese).
It could be said that P1 intends to use this strategy in order to enable communication and
especially to “have attention from listener”, which motivates her to speak English and
become an effective communicator.
65
In sum, it could be considered that the strategies of literal translation, over- emphasis and overusing interrogative fragment are used more frequently than remaining ones. Though the
participant used to learn English in school in Vietnamese and even spent time on joining English
classes when she came to Britain, she learnt English through daily communication rather than in
formal class. The rule of linguistics came out by subjective awareness of problems occurring in
actual communication, which leads insufficient awareness of linguistic items. It is true that P1
made mistake when speaking English as discussed above; however, in term of communication,
she used them with the aim of keeping the conversation channel open. The problem is just
because she didn’t realize her mistake and tried to emphasize it in an attempt to speak English
properly, which makes a good communication at least. Considering English as a lingua franca
(ELF)/ English as International language (EIL), ‘failing’ to use correct forms in tag questions
(e.g., isn’t it?/ Is it?) as P2 does here is a feature of this language (Cogo & Dewey 2006).
However, while according to Breiteneder (2005), ELF/ EIL is typically used between NNS and
NNS, she uses with native speakers for the same sort of reason to enable communication. It is
assumed that it’s the best thing for her to speak a native speaker model of English rather than an
ELF /English as international language model.
In conclusion, it could be noted that P1 consciously used DIRECT STRATEGYs in order to not
only fill the gap occurring in communication, but also enhance the effectiveness of
communication in spite of improper CSs’ use because of the lack of knowledge of linguistic
items. The result confirms to role of CSs’ use as essential and effective devices used to not only
overcome the communication problems because of linguistic deficiency or other resources
(Dobao & Martínez, 2007; Savignon, 1983; Somsai & Intaraprasert, 2011).
66
4.2.2.The less effective learner
General view of CSs’ use
An overview of communication strategy’s use of P2 considered is shown in these tables below.
As can be seen in the tables, the frequency of the indirect strategy is the most significant one,
followed by direct strategy as the second highest percentage and interactional strategies in the
last. Namely, in interpersonal talk, the numbers demonstrate the disparity between indirect
strategy group and direct strategy group with 75, 07% in total of strategies used and 21,66%,
respectively while this number of interactional strategy is just 3,27%.
Strategies
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of CSs
Total of use
(%)
(%)
DIRECT STRATEGY
73
21.66
27.65
INDIRECT STRATEGY
253
75.07
90.83
INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY
11
3.27
4.17
Table 6: Frequency of CS’s use in interpersonal talk by the less effective learner
In transactional talk, the difference among groups is similar to the data in interpersonal talk.
However, the difference between indirect and direct strategies is lower with 54,60% of total of
strategies for indirect strategy and 34,97% for direct strategies. This number of interactional
strategy is higher with 10,43%.
67
Strategies
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of CSs
Total of use
(%)
(%)
DIRECT STRATEGY
57
34.97
33.73
INDIRECT STRATEGY
89
54.60
52.66
INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY
17
10.43
10.06
Table 7: Frequency of CS’s use in transactional talk by less effective learner
Interlingual transfer strategy
The analysis will go in details in dominant numbers in following tables. One of the most
significant numbers in the use of direct strategies is interlingual transfer’s use in both
interpersonal and transactional contexts.
Strategy
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of DSs
Total of CSs
Total of Use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Message abandonment
3
4.11
0.89
1.14
Message Reduction
2
2.74
0.59
0.76
Message Replacement
1
1.37
0.30
0.38
Paraphrasing
5
6.85
1.48
1.89
Topic avoidance
1
1.37
0.30
0.38
Literal translation
13
17.81
3.86
4.92
Interlingual Transfer
22
30.14
6.53
8.33
Use of L1 words
0
0
0
0
Use of all purpose words
8
10.96
2.37
3.03
68
Retrieval
7
9.59
2.08
2.65
Self repair
3
4.11
0.89
1.14
Other repair
4
5.48
1.19
1.89
Over - emphasis
1
1.37
0.30
0.38
Over-using Interrogative
3
4.11
0.89
1.14
fragment
Table 8: Frequency of DIRECT STRATEGY’s use in interpersonal talk by less effective learner
From the table 8 above, we can see that the significant number of the strategy of interlingual
transfer with 30,14% of total of DIRECT STRATEGYs’ use and 6,53% of total of CSs’ use in
general. This number in the transactional context is 35,09% and 12,27%, respectively. The
following examples show how P2 uses this strategy in communication.
Excerpt 10:
…
Line 1: Cus: How about you ?
Line 2: P2: No. “oh” “I” just one time “a” year come back Vietnam, my country. “oh” “oh” I
Line 3: visit my country /kʌn tə ri/ (Vietnamese pronunciation)
Line 4: Cus: Oh yeah. So when are you going ?
Line 5: P2: No. No. “oh” I think in Fe “oh” Fe.. Februa..”oh” February /Fe bə rə ry/ ((
Vietnamese pronunciation))
Line 6: Cus. February.
Excerpt 11:
69
Line 1: Cus: ((Laugh)) yeah. How long does it take ?
Line 2: P2: Thirteen /θɜ rə ti:n/ (( Vietnamese pronunciation)) hour.”oh” HourS /S/.
Line 3: Cus: Wow. Long flight.
Line 4: P2: Yeah. And in here different weather. She like the summer, BUT the winter “oh” she
Line 5: do not like. Very cold. “oh” in my country it’s very hot.
Line 6: Cus: Exactly. Not like here. (( laugh)).
Line 7: P2: yeah. This “oh” time thirty nine or forty DEGREE /de gə ri:/ ((Vietnamese
pronunciation))
Excerpt 12:
Line 1: P2: Balance /Ba lan s/ ((Vietnamese pronunciation)).
Line 2: NS: Sorry?
Line 3: P2: Ba... balance ? I do not know in English. ((Move hands))
Line 4: NS: Yeah. It number 14, brass sovereign balance. A balance to make sure that the weight
of gold Line 5: was the same on either side.
In these examples of interpersonal talk, the words of “Country”, “Thirteen”, “February”, and
“Degree” were pronounced by the effect of Vietnamese pronunciation. As explained in the
interview, it was hard for P2 to pronounce the sounds containing the consonant cluster such as
/br/ in “february” or /gr/ in “degree”. As mentioned above, the phonetic phenomenon of
consonant cluster is unfamiliar to the Vietnamese. Thus, participants tend to adjust their mother
tongue to the target language phonologically or morphologically (Dörnyei 1995). This is
explained for P2’s choice of Interlingual transfer strategy in communication. Looking at another
70
example in the excerpt 12 of transactional conversation, we can see P2 tried to pronounce
“Balance” many times by using the strategy of interlingual transfer. However, the reason of this
usage is because he didn’t know how to pronounce it at all. While in above examples, he knew
the pronunciation, but he could not deal with it or might not try to properly pronounce. In sum,
the strategy of interlingual transfer seems to be used because of pronunciation problems affected
by the first language and/ or the lack of vocabularies which should be learnt with the meaning,
spell and pronunciation. Therefore, it could be said that the context might not an important
influential in this case. Notwithstanding, it can be added that motivation might be the element
which should be considered in using the strategy of interlingual transfer. As the participant said:
“I think it’s not a big problem, because my customers still understand. Actually, if
I try, I can pronounce some words properly, but I do not. If they understand what
I say, that’s enough”. (P2- Interview translated from Vietnamese).
To be more specific, it could be noted that P2 use CSs with the intention of achievement
of fluency rather than accuracy in communication, which causes the fact that he seems
not to be motivated to speak English properly by using different CSs. This result
confirms Guhlemann’s findings (2011) about the possible correlation between motivation
and strategy use.
Strategy
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of DSs
Total of CSs
Total of use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Message abandonment
0
0
0
0
Message Reduction
0
0
0
0
Message Replacement
0
0
0
0
71
Paraphrasing
2
3.51
1.23
1.18
Topic avoidance
8
14.04
4.91
4.73
Literal translation
2
3.51
1.23
1.18
Interlingual Transfer
20
35.09
12.27
11.83
Use of L1 words
2
3.51
1.23
1.18
Use of all purpose words
4
7.02
2.45
2.37
Retrieval
4
7.02
2.45
2.37
Self repair
6
10.53
3.68
3.55
Other repair
4
7.02
2.45
2.37
Over - emphasis
4
7.02
2.45
2.37
Over-using Interrogative
1
1.75
0.61
0.59
fragment
Table 9: Frequency of DIRECT STRATEGY’s use in transactional talk by less effective learner
The strategy of the use of all-purpose words
The table 8 shows that one of the significant numbers is the strategy of using all-purpose words.
It takes the proportion of 10,96% of total of DIRECT STRATEGYs’ use as the second highest
strategy used in communication. Consider excerpt 13.
Excerpt 13:
Line 1: P2: oh yeah. That color. (2.0) You live in Ashton?
Line 2: Cus: No. I live in Oldham.
Line 3: P2: How far from here ?
Line 4: Cus: About fifteen minutes. Not far.
72
Line 5: P2: yeah nor far. “oh” I live in here. Easy for my..”oh” my do. “oh” work.
Line 6: Cus: Oh yeah. That’s good. It’s a bit quite in the morning, is not it ?
Line 7: P2: Yeah. Nor (.) nor (.) normally weekend very busy. (2.0) “oh” but the middle month
Line 8: “oh” is not busy than “oh” “oh” the end of the month.
Line 9: Cus: Urm ?
Line 10: P2: “oh” Customer “oh” have to pay. They do money. “oh” I meant they have
Line 11: money. “ah” They do for someone. And someone pay for them.
Line 12: Cus: oh yeah.
The participant used “my do” instead of “my job” in line 5 in the excerpt above, and “they do
money” instead of “they earn money” in line 11. It could be argued that the strategy used might
be the use of word coinage and/ or literal translation rather than using of purpose words.
However, if we look at the taxonomy of the current research, that is to say, the strategy of using
of all-purpose words is separated and is defined as a mean of using the common purpose words
of “thing” for unknown nouns, and “make, do” for unknown verbs”, this situation will be
classified as the strategy of using purpose words. The reason why these words are quite popular
and used a lot could be found out by looking at the data collected from the follow up interview.
In an question about how often P2 use the word “thing in English”, he demonstrated that
“Actually a lot.((laugh)). If I do not know how to express a noun, I use
“something” or “thing”. At least listener could understand I am mentioning
something, not action.” (P2- Interview translated from Vietnamese)
While being questioned about what word P2 normally prefer using to express his ideas if
he does not know main verb, P2 indicated that:
73
“Do. I use “do” to explain whatever I want to meant by action. Actually, I also
use “make”, but I can not distinguish the use of “make” and “do” in each
situation. It sounds to me that they have same meaning and we can use them as an
alternative.” (P2- Interview- Translated from Vietnamese)
Interestingly, using of all-purpose words as a communication strategy is also described as a
feature of ELF. Cogo & Dewey (2006) presented one of ELF’ features is overusing certain verbs
of high semantic generality such as do, make, have. As discussed above about the use of overusing question tags by P1, P2 also uses here with native speakers. However, P2 tends to use it in
both interpersonal and transactional contexts while this strategy is used in transactional talk by
P1. Consider excerpt below.
Excerpt 14:
P1: Oh Chinese coin. (( Point at the other coin)). I remember when I YOUNGER (1.0) “oh” “oh”
when I can not “oh” sleeping, like sleeping. And about midnight I wake up ....”oh” (( Action)).
And I remember my grand >grand grand<mother, she use “the” hole like this and go through
with the “oh” thing, what it call, but long and you can do “oh” (2.0) and put in “my” part. ((
Point at the neck)).
P1 seems to use the strategy of using purpose words less frequently in interpersonal context than
transactional context. In the excerpt 14, she used “the thing” and “do” as the purpose words.
According to Cheng (2007) in a survey of Taiwanese university students, the CSs’ use is
dependent on the context rather than previous learning and experiences. Compared with the
findings above, the research provides some evidence that both participants, especially P1, tend to
74
strategy of using of all-purpose words in the contexts which is difficult to deal with. Therefore, it
could be said that the choice of CSs might be affected by specific contexts.
4.3.
What differences are there in the use of communication strategies
between effective and less-effective second language speakers in the
Vietnamese refugee and immigrant community?
With respect to the second research question, it is true that differences in the use of
communication strategies by the effective and less effective participants are also found based on
the answer of the first research question. The findings above partly give an insight about the
differences. However, the other interesting and significant data which emerges from the analysis
could be considered to provide a more detailed and in-depth explanation.
4.3.1.Asking for confirmation strategy.
As discussed above, the use of INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY takes the smallest proportion of
total strategies for both participants in not only interpersonal but also transactional conversation.
Among interactional strategies, the strategy of asking for confirmation is commonly frequent
used compared to others. Nevertheless, this number by P1 is more dominant than P2. To be more
specific, it is 4.24% of total of use by P1 and P2 with 2,65% in interpersonal context.
75
Code
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of IRS
Total of CSs
Total of use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Asking for Help
1
5.88
0.32
0.28
Asking for Repetition
0
0
0
0
Asking for confirmation
15
88.24
4.87
4.24
Asking for explanation
1
5.88
0.32
0.28
Table 10: Frequency of INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY’s use in interpersonal talk by the
effective learner
And table 11
Strategy
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of IRS
Total of CSs
Total of use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Appeal for Help
3
27.27
0.89
1.14
Asking for repetition
0
0
0
0
Asking for Confirmation
7
63.64
2.08
2.65
Asking for explanation
1
9.09
0.30
0.38
Table 11: Frequency of INTERACTIONAL STRATEGY’s use in interpersonal talk by the less
effective learner
The choice of using the strategy found from data analysis is different by both participants. The
strategy of asking for confirmation is used by P1 to confirm what she has listened and/ or to
express the feeling of being surprised. While P2 uses it when he is not sure what has been said by
the interlocutor. Consider excerpts below.
76
Excerpt 15:
Line 1: CUS: (...)I sorted all of my wardrobe out a few weeks ago and I sent all me clothes out
to the Line 2: Philippines.
Line 3: P1: “Um” Philippines?
Excerpt 16:
Line 1: P1: It (will be) nice. Your friend live over there? Live in Philippines?
Line 2: CUS: No she lives here, her family are still over here.
Line 3: P1: “Oh” she’s Philippine lady? Like my. Vietnamese lady?
Line 4: CUS: Yeah yeah
Line 5: CUS: Yeah yeah she’s been over here for about 20 years.
Line 6: P1: WOW! Twenty years? That’s long enough, IS IT ?
Compare with the use of this strategy by P2 in the excerpt below.
Excerpt 17: P2
Line 1: P2: “Oh” yeah. What time “you” “start” wake up tonight ? “oh” in the morning ? ((
Laugh))
Line 2: CUS: Oh 9am. Erm. Half past nine.
Line 3: P2: Nine ? “ And” work until 5 yeah ?
77
Line 4: CUS: Half past nine. Erm. Five. Erm. Yeah. But tomorrow I am working from 9am to
Line 5: 9pm.
Line 6: P2: “oh” so from half past nine to nine pm?
Line 7: CUS: No no. Normally just from half past nine until five. But tomorrow I am working
Line 8: from nine am to nine pm.
Line 9: CUS: “um”. Ok.
The information collected in interview data about these conversations shows that P1 knew the
information such as “Philippines” in line 3 in excerpt 15, “she’s Philippine lady” in line 3, and
“Twenty years” in line 6 in excerpt 16 before asking for confirmation. While P2 in an interview
said:
“I didn’t hear clearly nine or half past nine. I know she explained again, but I still
didn’t get it”.(P2-Interview translated from Vietnamese)
As P2 said, he wasn’t sure about the information provided by the customer. After twice times of
asking for confirmation, he pretended understanding. The strategy seems to be used to enhance
the effectiveness of the communication in the case of P1 while P2 uses it for the force situations
such as in direction rather than keeping conversation opening until reaching the target language.
In another interview, P2 expressed his ideas that:
“I do not want to ask for confirmation because If I do not understand what they
said, It means I do not know the words been said. So even they still explain for
me, I think I can not get it.” (P2-Interview translated from Vietnamese)
78
It is apparent that motivation again has an impact on the use of the strategy of asking for
confirmation. In an attempt to speak English more fluently and properly, the effective learner
seems to be more active in communication, trying to use the strategies in order to solve the
communication problem in an active way, which contributes to keep communication open and
make the conversation become actively. However, the less effective learner tends to solve the
communication problem in an opposite way which allows him to prevent the challenges in
communication by avoiding it. Therefore, the solutions offered by these both participants are
different, which will be discussed in the next section.
4.3.2. Topic avoidance (TA) and Keep going strategies (KG)
Two divergent results emerged from the interview data that the participants tend to handle the
communication problems of non-understanding differently. P1 seems to use the strategy of
keeping conversation going until reaching the target communication while the strategy of topic
avoidance is frequently used to handle the communication problem by P2. The analysis of each
situation will be discussed respectively.
Strategy of keep going conversation
Firstly, as can be seen in the table 3a, the use of KG is the third highest one in total of
interactional strategies with 12 times of being used, and takes 3.39% of total of use
79
Strategy
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of IDS
Total of CSs
Total of Use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Using of fillers
112
72.73
36.36
31.64
Repetition
25
15.82
8.12
7.06
Other repetition
1
0.63
0.32
0.28
Pretend understanding
8
5.06
2.60
2.26
Keep going conversation.
12
7.59
3.90
3.39
Tables 12: Frequency of INDIRECT STRATEGY’s use in interpersonal talk by effective learner
Consider the following excerpt.
Excerpt 18:
Line 1: P1: Do you where is this restaurant?
Line 2: CP1: No idea.
Line 3: P1: My friend, she said it is somewhere near Dean (.) DeanS:gate.
Line 4: CP2: Is it near central church…central church?(( Fast))
Line 5: P1: “oh” “oh” “yeah”. It is near Deangate.
Line 6: CP1: On deansgate?
Line 7: CP2: It is possible that it is base Brasenose street?
Line 8: P1: What ? what street ?
Line 9: CP2: Brasenose street?
Line 10: P1: I just want to go to this restaurant. I do not understand.
Line 11: CP2: I’m just not sure about it, but “um” on Brasenose street, there is the church.
80
Line 12: P1: “Oh” ok. I try to walk.
(( They check Google Map))
Line 13: P1: Someone tells me yeah. I walk to Debenham. But I do not get where to go next.
Line 14: CP2: yeah
Line 15: P1: So could you help me ?
Line 16: CP2: ah I just think that it might be on Brasenose Street. I’m not sure about it.
Line 17: CP1: ok so carry on walk. If it is on Deansgate, it’s like…. um you just keep walking,
on Line 18: the right side you will see “um” a Marks Spencer shop, and then it should be on the
left Line 19: side there should be like…um
As described in the taxonomy of the current research, KG is keeping the same conversation
going until reaching the target communication when facing a non- understanding communication
problem or does not get any cooperation in communication with the interlocutor. It means that
the learners try to achieve the intended communication by any way. In the excerpt, though the
conversation partner didn’t provide any information, P1 kept the conversation by adding more
information that “My friend, she said it is somewhere near Dean (.) DeanS:gate.” in line 3. It
is apparent that it worked because at least the interlocutor turned back the conversation and
asked P2 more about the place. However, P2 didn’t get the message, and she kept going by
repeating the information “It is near Deangate.” in line 5. When being asked more details about
the place, she kept continuing to say “I just want to go to this restaurant” in line 10 though she
didn’t understand what they asked her before. It had been continuing like this way until she got
the message of how to get to the restaurant. It is true that her choice of using the strategy of KG
81
works in this case. Just imagine that if the conversation still goes on if she stopped at the first
sentences. As she said in an interview:
“Sometimes I do not understand what they are talking about, which makes me feel
bad. It’s hard to say what this feeling is. The only thing I can do is to keep talking
about this until I understand or get the answer.” (P1- Interview- Translated from
Vietnamese)
Considering another case of the less effective learner, P2 tends to handle the problem in a
different way by using the strategy of “topic avoidance” when non- understanding occurs in
communication. The table 7 shows that the strategy of topic avoidance is also frequently used by
the less effective learner. It is 14,04% of total of DIRECT STRATEGY group, just after the
highest number of the interlingual transfer strategy; and 4.73% of total of use. To be added that,
topic avoidance in this taxonomy used in the current research is about when learners decide to
change to another topic in order to avoid the topic which they find it difficult to deal with.
Consider this excerpt below.
Excerpt 19:
Line 1: NS: But this is, they used this to, when the ancestors died to burn the money, as an
Line 2: offering I think. That’s what it says; it says Chinese hell money. And that’s how
Line 3: much…is that 5 million or 50 million? Or 800 million and 200 thousands…such
Line 4: invitation money is ceremonially transfer money from the human world to ones ancestors
Line 5: in the spiritual world.
Line 6: P2: yeah. “just” (sell) it ?
82
Line 7: NS: ???
Line 8: P2: You know – You know (1.0) which year? (( Point at another coin ? ))
Line 9: NS: I do not know. Does it say?
Line 10: P2: No it does NOT.
In this example, after the explanation, P2 didn’t get the whole message and guessed “hell
money” in line 2 to “sell money” according to the follow up interview data. Therefore, he used
the strategy of asking for confirmation in attempt to say something related to the given message
by the question “Just sell it?” in line 6. However, when P2 didn’t get the information back, he
changed to use the strategy of topic avoidance by pointing at another coin in money gallery and
asked “You know – You know (1.0) which year?” in line. This could be considered that P2
might be easier to give up the communication and use the strategy of topic avoidance as a way to
handle the communication rather than keeping the conversation going in the same topic until
reaching the communication target. The finding of using topic avoidance strategy by P2 confirms
what Guhlemann (2011) pointed out that participants who face with language difficulties try to
avoid talking about a specific topic by topic avoidance strategy or completely abandon intended
messages. Similarly, in a survey of investigating Swedish students’ overall use of CSs,
Guhlemann (2011) found out that topic avoidance strategy was among the most frequently used
strategies.
83
4.3.3. Strategy of using of fillers
The most striking number in data analysis is the use of strategy of using of fillers. This number is
the highest one in not only interpersonal talk but also transactional ones for both participants. In
interpersonal context, P1’s use takes the proportion of 31,64%of total of utterances while this
number for P2 is 60,60% base on the data from the table 3a and 7a.
STRATEGY
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of IDS
Total of CSs
Total of Use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Using of fillers
160
63.24
47.48
60.60
Repetition
71
28.06
21.07
26.89
Other repetition
4
1.58
1.19
1.52
Pretend understanding
3
1.19
0.89
1.34
Keep going conversation.
14
5.53
4.15
5.30
Tables 13: Frequency of INDIRECT STRATEGY’s use in interpersonal talk by the lesseffective learner
In transactional context, there is slight decrease in the percentage of frequency of the strategy’s
using of fillers. Namely, it is 25.25% of total of utterances for P1 and 25,44% for P2. However,
these numbers stills stand in the highest one compared to the remaining strategies.
84
Strategy
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of IDS
Total of CSs
Total of Use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Using of fillers
50
49.84
34.48
25.25
Repetition
14
29.17
9.66
7.07
Other repetition
5
6.17
3.45
2.53
Pretend understanding
6
7.41
4.14
3.03
Keep going conversation.
6
7.41
4.14
3.03
Tables 14: Frequency of INDIRECT STRATEGY’s use in transactional talk by the effective
learner
Strategy
Times
Percentage of
Percentage of
Percentage of
Total of IDS
Total of CSs
Total of Use
(%)
(%)
(%)
Using of fillers
43
48.31
26.38
25.44
Repetition
27
30.34
16.56
15.98
Other repetition
8
8.99
4.91
4.73
Pretend understanding
9
10.11
5.52
5.33
Keep going conversation.
2
2.25
1.23
1.18
Tables 15: Frequency of INDIRECT STRATEGY’s use in transactional talk by the lesseffective learner
There are two issues considered in this section. From the data collected and analyzed, it is found
that there is difference between two participants when using of fillers as a communication
strategy. To be more specific, the differences are the position of filler in speech and type of
fillers used.
85
Position of fillers in speech.
Firstly, a comparison of the two results reveals that P1 tends to use the fillers in the beginning or
the end of the speech while it is in the middle for the less effective one. Consider these following
excerpts.
Excerpt 20:
Line 1: P1- In interpersonal talk
Line 2: CUS: Yeah like the Philippines is a poor country, nice but poor
Line 3: P1: Yeah. It’s nice. “And” when you go to Vietnam yeah, it’s REALLY cheap. A lot of
Line 4: history (.) ..and a few villages, really nice. (1.0) Oh yeah. People in there , they’re really
Line 5: beautiful and sweet.
Line 6: P1: When you go there, you do not worry you get lost. Yeah. EVEN, even you can NOT
Line 7: speak Vietnamese, language yeah. BUT they’re always side by side for help if you need
Line 8: their help.
Excerpt 21:
Line 1: P1: It’s language really important. Yeah. BECAUSE if you know a few languages,
Line 2: when you go different countries, you do not scare. Yeah. You do not nervous.
Line 3: CUS: We should have translator over here, well free really should not they?
Line 4: P1: Yeah I can. But like (2.0) sometimes I do not understand what they say. BUT
Line 5: sometimes I can learn mouth to mouth (( move hands)), like “oh” when I Line 6: speak
with you, I can learn from you.
86
…
Line 7: P1: Yeah, yeah. “Like” our culture (1.0), our language yeah, when I say Vietnam, BUT
Line 8: you say VietnameS:e ( not /z/) yeah ? .The problem (1.0) any word just “tik tik tik” ((
Line 9: ...)) like this, but English like (.) up and down (( move hands)) and /S:/ like that. Like
Line 10: Please. “Like” I say PLEASE, I just say PLEASE ((without sound /z/)) yeah, but “oh”
Line 11: “oh” if I say popular English correct, I have to say PLEASE: ( /S:/). Yeah ? Yeah. But
Line 12: sometimes I forgot. (( laugh)).
As can be seen from the excerpt, P1 tends to use most of fillers in two positions one of which is
the end of speech, for example, “BUT you say VietnameS:e ( not /z/) yeah ?” in line 8 (excerpt
21) or ““And” when you go to Vietnam yeah” in line 3 (excerpt 20). And another one is the
beginning of the speech. Looking at these examples: “Yeah. It’s nice” in line 3 (excerpt 20),
“Yeah, yeah. “Like” our culture (1.0)” in line 7 (excerpt 21), P2 tends to use most of fillers at
the beginning of the sentence. Talking about this issue, P1 said in an interview that she didn’t
mean to use it at the beginning and the end. She automatically uses the filler when she wants to
gain time to change to next sentence. According to her, using of fillers is better than repetition of
the word which has been said before in order to gain time. In a survey of Malaysian students in
universities, Raed, Nur and Mohamad (2013) indicated that the Malaysian ESL students used
fillers strategy more often than others among the indirect CSs; however, the authors did not
describe how learners tended to use these strategies.
87
Considering the use of fillers by P2, the position is mostly common used in the middle of time.
According to the data collected from interview, P2 didn’t know what word he would choose to
say; therefore, he used fillers a lot in the middle of speech.
Excerpt 22:
Line 1: Cus: Oh yeah. So when are you going ?
Line 2: P2: No. No. “oh” I think in Fe “oh” Fe.. Februa..”oh” February (( Vietnamese
pronunciation))
Line 3: Cus. February.
Line 4: P2: yeah. February. BUT this year I “oh” I get married. I do not know. “ah”. No. I “oh”
Line 5: I get married already. “oh” Before I’m “oh” I’m alone. SO I just go “back” to “oh” to
Line 6: “oh” visit my mom all the time. But “this” year, “oh” not decide yet. “oh” Not say no
Line 7: now, still thinking.
Line 8: Cus: haha yeah. You’re right. Did you get married here?
Line 9: P2: My wife ((Point at his wife)).
Line 10: Cus: Oh your wife?
Line 11: P2: Yeah. My wife is over here. Over there. ((laugh))
Line 12: Cus: Alright.
Line 13: P2: “oh” sometime “oh” two years. “oh” Just one time “oh” for two “oh” years. Two
Line 14: years. “oh” Because she is lazy. She do not want “long” time on flight.
Line 15: CUS: Because when you get to Singapore, you stay over there and then you have to
Line 16: wait for the next plane…very long flight
88
Line 17: P2: Oh my God. Yeah really long flight.
Type of fillers
The second issue could be considered here is the type of fillers used by both participants.
Turning back to above excerpts, it could be said that P1 seems to use “yeah” rather than “um” or
“oh” while P2 is vice versa. According to Spielmann (2007), the fillers of “yeah” are multifunctional such as back-channeling, agreeing with alters’ moves and structuring discourse.
House (2013) pointed out that the frequency of using “yeah” is to make its use
“communicatively effective”. Therefore, it could come to conclusion that the use of what type of
fillers could show how effective the communication is.
89
CHAPPER V: CONCLUSION
5.1.
SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS
In conclusion, the current research attempted to answer two questions. Firstly, the investigation
aimed to determine how Vietnamese refugees and immigrants use communication strategies to
manage to communicate. Secondly, this study investigated the differences of using
communication strategies between the effective and less effective communicators. Two research
questions were answered by analyzing audio- recordings of conversations between participants
and native speakers in the specific contexts and the follow-up interview data.
First of all, the investigation found out how participants use communication strategies in both
interpersonal and transactional context by looking at each situation. P1 tends to use both direct
strategies and indirect strategies with the approximately similar frequency. Dörnyei and Scott
(1995a, 1995b) defined communication strategies according to “the manner of problem
management; that is, how communication strategies contribute to resolving conflicts and
achieving mutual understanding”. Thus, it could be said that the effective participant tends to use
communication strategies both directly and indirectly in order to solve communication problems
and with a similar frequency level.
Another finding is that P1 tends to choose CSs in an attempt to focus on accuracy in
communication at the beginning; however, different CSs are used during conversation in order
not to break fluency in communication. P1 unconsciously uses CSs to enable communication.
90
Additionally, limitations in the learning English through communication is highlighted by the
high frequency of use of over- emphasis and over- using interrogative fragment strategies by P1
such as using non-changing form of question tags (isn’t it/ is it?). Learning English through
communication might lead to the misunderstanding and insufficiency of knowledge. However, in
the attempt to speak English properly by using these strategies, motivation should be considered
as an element for communication strategy’s use. In term of ELF/ EIL, both participants are
believed to use some CSs (over-using all purpose words, non-changing question tags’ use) as the
features of this language for the same sort of reason to enable communication. The findings
found out on the less- effective shows that the participant seems to indirectly create conditions to
solve communication problems rather than directly contribute to handle by compensating.
Challenges in pronunciation affected by the first language are also considered. However, the
reason of using interlingual transfer as discussed in the chapter IV presents that the participant is
not motivated to use communication strategy effectively.
With respect to the second research question, it is true that differences in the use using
communication strategies by the effective and less effective participants are also found based on
the answer of the first research question. The findings above partly give an insight about the
differences. However, the other interesting and significant data emerged from the analysis could
be considered to provide a more detailed and in-depth explanation. Firstly, as discussed above,
the use of interactional strategy is small number compared to others for both participants.
However, the reasons found out are different in each situation. Namely, the effective participant
tends to use interactional strategies in order to enhance the effectiveness of communication while
the less effective one seems not to be motivated to use these because of the thought that they are
91
useless strategies for him. Because of this, participants tend to handle situations differently when
communication problem of non-understanding occurs in the communication. To be more
specific, in order to solve problems, the effective one tends to use the strategy of enable
communication while topic avoidance is used more frequently by the less effective one. Finally,
the focus on position and type of fillers in term of using of fillers as a strategy shows that the
effective participant uses the fillers mostly in the beginning and end of speech while the less
effective one uses it in the middle more frequently. “Yeah” appears to be used more effectively
in communication by the effective participant.
5.2.
SIGNIFICANCE
It is important to note that the current research provides the detailed insights into the use of
communication strategies by the effective and less effective learners. The results of the
investigation provide the evidence that communication strategies are used not only to fill the gap
occurring in communication but also to enhance the effectiveness of communication
Furthermore, in attempt to find out the differences of communication strategies’ use between the
effective and less- effective learners, the research shows the possible relationship between
motivation and communication strategies’ use as Guhlemann (2011) presented, which wasn’t
expected before research. The study also supports the idea of first language’s influences on
communication strategies’ use. The position and type of filler used as a strategy could also be
considered as important findings in this research.
92
5.3.
LIMITATION
As a case study research, there are some possible limitations which are considered in this
context. Firstly, according to Duff (2008), generalizability is one of the most pronounced
disadvantages in case study. The research investigated two cases, and consequently, it is unclear
how universal the findings are to reflect the general phenomenon for other Vietnamese refugees
and immigrants with different backgrounds and educational experiences. However, Stake (2005,
p.448) notes that “even intrinsic case study can be seen as a small step toward grand
generalization”. A great example is the case study of Wes, a Japanese artist who hasn’t improved
his English after a long time living in Hawaii by Schmidt (1983). This case study could be a
small step for following research carried out on the field of communicative competence of the
subjects who are immigrants to English- spoken country. This communication strategy was used
as a key part of argument about need for conscious attention to grammar in SLL.
Secondly, because of one of two participants’ change in using audio- record instead of videorecord, non-verbal communication strategies such as gestures, body language, eye- contact are
not conducted in this investigation. Also, the period of research time limits how much data which
was analyzed. Namely, only two conversations among five in nail salons were discussed for each
participants.
Finally, a case study should be carried out as a longitudinal research which provides a more
feasible chance to examine change through the case chosen (Duff, 2008). This present project
has a limited time for three months. Therefore, the aim of the case study was to discover how
93
participants use communication strategies instead of examining if teaching communication
strategies improve their language acquisition.
5.4.
IMPLICATION FOR TEACHING
With regard to communication strategies in the language classroom, it is controversial that these
strategies should be taught or not in classroom. Bialystok (1990) claimed that “The more the
learner knows, the more possibilities exist for the system to be flexible and to adjust itself to
meet the demands of the learner. What one must teach students of a language is not strategy, but
the language” (p.146). According to Sato (2005) and Le (2006), teaching of communication
strategies is not sufficient for learners to use communication strategies in actual life in spite of its
certain influences. Conversely, other researchers such as Oxford (1990) and Dörnyei (1995)
argued that teaching CSs is necessary in second language acquisition in order to help learners to
be aware of strategy use and employ appropriate strategies in certain situations. . As discussed in
the chapter IV, the participants seem to use indirect strategies unconsciously while the direct
strategies are consciously used. This suggests that teaching of direct strategies might be useful to
raise learners’ awareness and improve their strategic competence (Sato, 2005). Therefore, this
investigation offers the following implications. Namely, learners need to be encouraged and
motivated to use communication strategies. Furthermore, explicit communication strategy
teaching has a certain impact on raising learners’ awareness. The practice of direct strategies
such as paraphrasing, using of all-purpose words might be useful for learners in order to use
94
these in real communication. Raising learners’ awareness of differences between first language
and second language’s pronunciation is also important in classroom.
5.5.
FUTHER RESEARCH
It is significant to note that in order to increase the validity of the results and compare individual
cases, it would be interesting to undertake an investigation similar but with multiple cases.
Survey research of wider population based on self-report data could be conducted in order to
confirm findings of the current research. Furthermore, this study is conducted in specific
contexts. Thus further research is needed to investigate CSs’ use in different context such as EFL
context, with different subjects and different role of participants. Also both participants in this
research have lived in England for at least 7 years, which might affect the results. Therefore, the
use of CSs on different participants with shorter or longer length of time in England might lead
to different results, which awaits further research.
5.6. FINAL WORDS
One of challenges for refugees and immigrants is language. It is really hard for them to
communicate in daily life and find a job because of difficulties in second language. The
government actually supports these subjects by English courses in colleges. Some organizations
also provide English classes for refugees and immigrants in public places, which encourages
them to learn English. My experience was of little understanding among teachers of the general
95
and specific experiences of refugees. However, through my experiences during undertaking the
current research, I became interested in investigating communication strategies’ use by refugees
and immigrants in order to help them improve their English skills. Teaching English as lingua
franca or a native speaker model bringing more benefits for refugees and immigrants is still
needed to investigate in further research. As a part of Vietnamese community in UK, I have
chances to talk to refugees and immigrants, who are the majority in this community. Some told
me their stories of learning English in UK and difficulties which they face in learning process.
They have been taught and tested in English class by fulfill the grammar tasks such as writing an
email, reading paragraph rather than communicative tasks. Through my experiences with
refugees and immigrants, communication strategies’ use plays an important role in second
language acquisition. More research on this phenomenon is needed to contribute methods to
enhance effectiveness of learning English for refugees and immigrants, because “there are rules
of use without which the rules of grammar would be useless” (Hymes, 1971, p.15).
96
REFERENCE
Bachman, L.F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Bachman, L.F., & Palmer, A.S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and
Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bagarie, V., & Djigunovie, M. J. (2007).Defining communicative competence.Metodika, 8(1),
94-103. Retrieved from http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/42651 .
Bialystok, E., & Kellerman, E. (1987).Language strategies in the classroom. In B. K. Das (Ed),
Communication and learning in the classroom community (pp. 160- 175). Singapore: SEAMEO
Reginal Language Center.
Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bongaerts, T., Kellerman, E., &Bentlage, A. (1987).Perspectives and proficiency in L2
referential communication.Studies in Second Language Ac-quisition, 9, 171-200.
Bongaerts, T., &Poulisse, N. (1989). Communication strategies in L1 and L2: Same or different?
Applied Linguistics, 10, 253-268.
Bou-Franch, P. (1994). Communication strategies and topic sequences in the conversational
discourse of Spanish learners of English. Stylistica: RevistaInternacional de EstudiosEstilísticos
y Culturales, 2(3), 153-162.
Breiteneder, A. (2005). The naturalness of English as a European lingua franca: The case of the
‘third person –s’. Vienna English Working Papers, 14(2), 3–26.
97
Bui, T. T. Q., & Intaraprasert, C. (2013).The effects of attitude towards speaking English and
Exposure to oral communication in English on use of communication strategies by English
majors in Vietnam. International Journal of Science and Research Publication, 3(2), 1-9.
Campbell, R., & Wales, R. (1970).The study of Language acquisition. In Lyons, J. (Ed), New
Horizons in Linguistics, (pp.242- 260). Harods: Pinguin Books Ltd.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical Bases of Communicative Approaches to Second
Language Learning and Testing, Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1-47.
Canale, M. (1983).From communication competence to communicative language pedagogy. In J.
C..Richards & R. W. Schmidt (Eds).Language and communication (pp. 2-27). Harlow, UK:
Longman.
Chen, S. Q. (1990), A study of communication strategies in interlanguage production by Chinese
EFL learners. Language Learning, 40, 155-187.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The M.I.T
Press.
Cogo, A. & M. Dewey (2006). Efficiency in ELF communication: From pragmatic motives to
lexicogrammatical innovation. Nordic Journal of English Studies. 5 (2), 59–94.
Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coughlan, P., & Duff, P. (1994). Same task, different activities: Analysis of a SLA task from an
activity theory perspective. In J. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds), Vygotskyan perspectives on second
language research (pp.173-193). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Dobao A. M. F., & Martínez I. M. P. (2007). Negotiating meaning in interaction between
English and Spanish speakers via communicative strategies. Atlantis, 29(1), 87-105.
98
Dörnyei, Z., &Thurrell, S. (1991). Strategies competence and how to teach it.ELT Journal, 45,
16-23.Gass, S. M., &Selinker, L. (1994).Second language acquisition: An introduce-tory course.
Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z., (1995). On the Teachability of Communication Strategies. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1),
55–85.
Dörnyei, Z., &Mucia, M. C. (1995). Communicative competence: A pedagogically motivated
model with content specifications. Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35. Retrieved from
http://www.zoltanDörnyei.co.uk/uploaDirect
Strategy/1995-celce-murcia-Dörnyei-thurrell-
ial.pdf
Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1995a, March). Communication strategies: What are they and what
are they not? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied
Linguistics (AAAL), Long Beach, CA.
Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M. L. (1995b). Communication strategies: An empirical analysis with
retrospection. In, J. S. Turley &K.Lusby (EDirect Strategy), Selected papers from the
proceedings of the 21st Annual Symposium of the Deseret Language and Linguistics Society
(pp.155-168). Provo, UT: BrighamYoung University.
Dörnyei, Z., & Scott, M.L. (1997). Review article. Communication strategies in a second
language: Definition and Taxonomies, Language learning, 47(1), 173-210.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duff, P.A., (2008). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Taylor and Francis
Group.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983a). Strategies in interlanguage communication. New York:
Longman.
99
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983b). Plans and strategies in foreign language learning and
communication. In C. Faerch, G. Kasper (EDirect Strategy) .Strategies in interlanguage
communication (pp. 20-60). New York: Longman.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983c). On identifying communication strategies in interlanguage
production. In C. Faerch, G. Kasper (EDirect Strategy) .Strategies in interlanguage
communication (pp. 210-238). New York: Longman.
Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1984).Two ways of defining communication strategies. Language
learning, 34(1), 45-63.
Hatch, E. (1972). Some studies in language learning. TESL Los Angeles, 6(1), 29-36.
House, J. (2013). Developing pragmatic competence in English as a lingua franca: Using
discourse markers to express (inter)subjectivity and connectivity. Journal of Pragmatics, 59 (1),
57-67
Howatt, A. P. R. 1984. A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Hymes, D. (1971). Sociolinguistics and the ethnography of speaking.In E. Ardener (Ed.), Social
anthropology and language, 47-93. London: Routledge.
Hymes, D. (1971). On linguistic theory, communicative competence, and the education of
disadvantaged
children.
In
M.L.
Wax,
S.A.
Diamond
&
F.
Gearing
(EDirect
Strategy.),Anthropological perspectives on education, 51-66. New York: Basic Books.
Hymes, D. H. (1972).On Communicative Competence. In Pride, J.B., & Holmes, J. (EDirect
Strategy), Sociolinguistics, 269 – 293. Baltimore, USA: Penguin Education, Penguin Language.
100
Hymes, D.H. (1974). Review of Noam Chomsky. In G. Harman (Ed.), "On Noam Chomsky:
Critical essays", 316-333. Garden City, NY: Anchor.
Hymes, D. H. (1974).Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadephia:
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Johnstone, B., &Marcellino, W. (2010).Dell Hymes and the ethnography of communication. In
R. Wodak, B. Johnstone& P. Kerswill (EDirect Strategy.), The Sage Handbook of
Sociolinguistics, 57-66. London: Sage.
Karijalainen, K. (2008). Using communication strategies to gain fluency, accuracy, and
complexity in L2. Studia Linguistica Upsaliensia. 8(1), 200-212.
Kellerman, E. (1991). Compensatory strategies in second language research: A critique, a
revision, and some (non-)implications for classroom. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L. Selinker,
M. SharwooDirect Strategymith, & M. Swain (Eds.), Foreign / second language pedagogy
research: A commemorative volume for Claus Ferch(pp. 142-161). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Mat-ters.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Le, T. T. H. (2006). Teaching communication strategies to Vietnamese learners of English.
Colombia: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Littlemore, J. (2003). The communicative effectiveness of different types of communication
strategies.System, 31(3), 331-347.
101
Littlewood, W. T. (1984). Foreign and Second Language Learning Language Acquisition
Research and its Implications for the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and Methods in ELT. Oxford: Blackwell
Publishing
Mishler, E. (1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Moattarian, A. (2012). Iranian EFL Learners’ perception and performance of communication
strategies in different mediums of communication. Theory and Practice in Language Studies,
2(11). 2349- 2356.
Nguyen, D. L. (1970). A contrastive phonological analysis of English and Vietnamese. Canberra:
Australian National University.
Nunan, D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Paribakht, T. (1985). Strategic competence and language proficiency.Applied Linguistics, 6, 132146.
Poulisse, N. (1987). Problems and solutions in the classification of compensatory strategies.
Second Language Research, 3, 141-153.
Poulisse, N. (1990). The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners of English. Dordrecht:
Foris.
Poulisse, N. (1993). A theoretical account of lexical communication strategies. In R.
Schreuder&B. Weltens (Eds.), The bilingual lexicon (157-189). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
102
Raupach, M. (1983).Analysis and evaluation of communication strategies. In C. Faerch, G.
Kasper (Eds).Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 175-196). New York: Longman.
Raed, L. U., Nur, I. A., & Mohamad, J. Z. A. (2013). Study of the communication strategies usd
by Malaysian ESL students at tertiary level. Internation journal of English language education,
1(1), 130-139.
Richards, K. ( 2003). Qualitative inquiry in tesol. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Richards, L. (2005). Handling qualitative data: A practical guide. London: Sage.
Rost, M., & Ross, S. (1991). Learner use of strategies in interaction: Typology and teachability.
Language Learning, 41, 235-273.
Rost, M. (1994, March).Communication strategies: Are they teachable? Paper presented at
TESOL ’94,Baltimore, MD.
Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In
A Wenden& J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-30). Hemel
Hempstead,UK: Prentice Hall.
Sato, K. (2005). Teaching and Learning Communication Strategies: From a Sociocultural
Perspective. Paper presented at SLRF 2005 Conference. Teachers College, Columbia University,
USA. Retrieved from www3.nufs.ac.jp/~yoshi/paper/SLRF%2005%20.doc.
Savignon, S. J. (1972). Communicative competence: An experiment in Foreign Language
Teaching. Philadelphia: The Center for Curriculum Development, Inc.
Savingnon, S. J. (1983). Communication competence: Theory and classroom practice. Reading,
MA:Addison-Wesley.
103
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied
linguistics. In J. H. Hulstijn & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Consciousness in second language learning
[Special issue], AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Selinker, L. (1972). Interlanguage.IRAL, 10(1), 209-230.
Seufert, P. (1999). Center for Applied Linguistics : Refugees as English Language Learners:
Issues and Concerns, Retrieved from
http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/Refugee.html.
Somsai, S., & Intaraprasert, C. (2011). Strategies For Coping With Face-To-Face Oral
Communication Problems Employed By Thai University Students Majoring In English. GEMA
Online™ Journal of Language Studies, 11(3), 83- 95.
Spielmann, D. (2007). English as lingua franca: a simplified code?. Universität Hamburg,
Unpublished MA thesis.
Tarone, E., Cohen, A.D., Dumas, G. (1976). A closer look at some interlanguage terminology:A
framework for communication strategies. Working Papers on Bilingualism, 9, 76-90.
Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage: A progress report. In
H.D. Brown, C.A. Yorio & R. C. Crymes (Eds.), On TE-SOL ’77 (pp.194-203). Washington:
TESOL.
Tarone, E. (1977). Some thoughts on the notion of “communication strategies”.In C. Faerch, G.
Kasper (EDirect Strategy) .Strategies in interlanguage communication (pp. 61-74). New York:
Longman.
Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk and Rerair in interlanguage.
Language Learning, 30, 417-431.
104
Tarone, E., Cohen, A. D., & Dumas, G. (1983).A closer look at some interchange terminology:
A framework for communication strategies. In C. Faerch, G. Kasper (Eds) . Strategies in
interlanguage communication (pp. 4-14). New York: Longman.
Tarone, E., & Yule, G. (1987).Communication strategies in East-West inter-actions. In L.E.
Smith (Eds.), Discourse across cultures: Strategies in world English (pp. 49-65). Hemel
Hempstead, UK: Prentice Hall.
Terrel, T. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. Modern
Language Journal, 61(1), 325-37.
Tran, T. H. (1980). Intermediate Vietnamese. New York: Cornell University Press.
Tully, R. (2005).Forced Migrants’ Success with English Language Learning in the UK (Masters’
Thesis). London: University of East London.
Váradi, T (1980). Strategies of target language learner communication: Mes-sage adjustment.
IRAL,18, 59-71. Paper originally presented at the VIth Conference of the Rumanian-English
Linguistics Project, Timisoara, Ru-mania, 1973.
Váradi, T. (1992). Review of the books Communication strategies: A psycha-logical analysis of
second-language use, by E. Bialystok and The use of compensatory strategies by Dutch learners
of English by N. Poulisse, T. Bongaerts, & E. Kellerman.Applied Linguistics, 13(1), 434-440.
Wagner, R. P. (2005). Linguistik und Sprachvermittlung.Wien: Lit Verlag.
Widdowson, H. G., (1983). Learning purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wiemann, J. M., & Daly, J. A. (1994). Introduction: Getting our own way. In J. A. Daly & J.M.
Wiemann(Eds), Strategic interpersonal communication (pp. vii-xiv). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
105
Willems, G. (1987). Communication strategies and significance in foreign language
teaching.System,15, 351-364.
Yin, R. (2003a). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Yule, G., &Tarone, E. (1991). The other side of the pape: Integrating the study of
communication Strategies and negotiated input SLA. In R. Phillipson, E. Kellerman, L, Selinker,
M. Sharwood Smith,&M. Swain (EDirect Strategy.), Foreign / second language pedagogy
research: A commemorative volume for Claus Ferch (pp. 162-171). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual
Mat-ters.
ZHANG. S, & YANG, X. (2010). Grammar in Language Teaching and Language Learning.
Journal
of
Cambridge
studies,
8(1).32-44.
Retrieved
from
https://www.srcf.ucam.org/acs/data/archive/2010/201001-article3.pdf .
106
APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
Project: A Case study of the use of ESL communication strategies by Vietnamese refugees
and immigrants in the Manchester context
Introduction
You are being asked to participate in a research study.The research is to examine and explain
what communication strategies learners use to manage to communicate meaning and discover
how to help learners to improve their language skill by using communication strategies.. This
form will describe the purpose of the study and your rights as a participant in the study. The
decision is yours to participate or not. If you decide to participate, please sign and date the last
line of the form.
There are some certain participants in the current study. All of information and data will be
collected only for the research and will be destroyed after that. Therefore, there isn’t possible
risk of saving data of the research. Personal information is not collected in this research. There
isn’t also any cost to you in this research. Your participation in this research is voluntary, and
you will not be penalized or lose any benefits you refuse participate or decide to stop.
Any time you have questions about the research, you may contact:
Name: Nguyen Thi Phuong Thao
Email: T.P.T.Nguyen@.........
Phone number: 07799776365
107
Signing this document means that the research study, including the above information, has been
described to you orally, and that you voluntarily agree to participate.
................................................................... ...................
Signature of participant
date
(Adapted from Mackey & Gass, 2005, p. 323)
108
APPENDIX B
Taxonomies of Communication Strategies 1 ( Dornyei and Scott, 1997, p.196)
Tarone (1977)
AVOIDANCE
Topic avoidance
Message
Abandonment
PARAPHRASE
Approximation
Word coinage
Circumlocution
CONSCIOUS
TRANSFER
Literal translation
Language switch
APPEAL
FOR
ASSISTANCE
MIME
Faerch & Kasper
(1983b)
FORMAL
REDUCTION
Phonological
Morphological
Syntactic
Lexical
FUNCTIONAL
REDUCTION
Actional red.
Modal red.
Reduction
of
propositional
content
-Topic avoidance
-Message
abandonment
-Meaning
replacement
ACHIEVEMENT
STRATEGIES
Compensatory
strategies
-Code switching
-Interlingual
transfer
-Inter-/ intralingual
transfer
-Il based strategies
*Generalization
*Paraphrase
*Word coinage
*Restructuring
-Cooperative
strategies
-Non-linguistic
strategies
Retrieval strategies
Bialystok (1983)
Paribakht (1985)
Willems (1987)
LI-BASED
STRATEGIES
Language switch
Foreignizing
Transliteration
LINGUISTIC
APPROACH
Semantic contiguity
-Superordinate
-Comparison
*Positive
comparison
Analogy
Synonymy
*Negative
comparison
Contrast & opposite
Antonymy
Circumlocution
-Physical description
*Size
*Shape
*Color
*Material
-Constituent features
*Features
*Elaborated
features
-Locational property
-Historical property
-Other features
-Functional
description
Metalinguistic clues
REDUCTION
STRATEGIES
Formail reduction
-Phonological
-Morphological
-Syntactic
-Lexical
Functional redaction
-Message
abandonment
-Meaning
replacement
-Topic avoidance
L2-BASED
STRATEGIES
Semantic
contiguity
Description
Word coinage
NONLINGUISTIC
STRATEGIES
CONTEXTUAL
APPOACH
Linguistic context
Use of L2idioms
and proverbs
Idiomatic transfer
CONCEPTUAL
APPROACH
Demonstration
Exemplification
Mentonymy
ACHIEVEMENT
STRATEGIES
Paralinguistic
strategies
Interlingual
strategies
-Borrowing/code
switching
-Literal translation
-Foreignizing
Intralingual
strategies
-Word coinage
-Paraphrase
*Description
*Circum-locution
*Exemplifi-cation
-Smurfing
-Self-repair
-Appeals
for
assistance
*Explicit
*Implicit
*Checking questions
- Initiating repair
MIME
Replacing
verbal
output
Accompanying
verbal output
109
APPENDIX C
Taxonomies of Communication Strategies 2 ( Dornyei and Scott, 1997, p.196)
Bialystok (1990)
Nijmegen Group
ANALYSISBASED CONCEPTUAL
STRATEGIES
STRATEGIES
Analytic
CONTROL
Holistic
BASED
STRATEGIES
LINGUISTIC/ CODE
STRATEGIES
Morphological
creativity
Transfer
Poulisse (1993)
SUBSTITUTION
STRATEGIES
SUBSTITUTION
PLUS
STRATEGIES
RECONCEPTUALIZATION
Dornyei & Scott (1995a,
1995b)
DIRECT STRATEGIES
Resource
deficit-related
strategies
*Message abandonment
*Message reduction
*Message replacement
*Circumlocution
*Approximation
*Use of all-purpose words
*Word-coinage
*Restructuring
*Literal translation
*Foreignizing
*Code switching
*Use of similar sounding
words
*Mumbling
*Omission
*Retrieval
*Mime
Own-performance problemrelated strategies
*Self-rephrasing
*Self-repair
Other-performance problemrelated strategies
INTERACTIONAL
STRATEGIES
Resource
deficit-related
strategies
110
*Appeals for help
Own-performance problemrelated strategies
*Comprehension check
*Own-accuracy check
Other-performance problemrelated strategies
*Asking for repetition
*Asking for clarification
*Asking for confirmation
*Guessing
*Expressing
nonunderstanding
*Interpretive summary
*Responses
INDIRECT STRATEGIES
Processing time pressurerelated strategies
*Use of fillers
*Repetitions
Own-performance problemrelated strategies
*Verbal strategy markers
Other-performance problemrelated strategies
*Feigning understanding
111
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE OF CODED DATA
Conversation 1: At museum – Money Gallery
NS: Native speaker
P1: Participant 2
P2: “Could” “I” ask something about coins ?
IDS/RP + IDS/RP
NS: Yeah. Sure thing.
P2: Why ? “oh” I can (1.0) “Could” I ask something “oh”, question, one question
about this ?
IDS/ UoF + IDS/ RP + IDS/
UoF + DS/ SR
NS: Yeah.
P2: Why ? “ah” Why not ? Why “ah” is Chinese money in here ?
IDS/ UoF + IDS/ UoF
NS: Oh yeah. Because there’s money are from all over the world.
P2: WOW. Yeah.
IDS/ UoF
NS: yeah this is Chinese hell money, and that’s how much such invitation money
is burned in the ceremony for transferring money from the human world to
ones ancestors in the spirit world.
P2: “Oh” Um”.
IDS/ UoF + IDS/ PU
NS: Have you heard of this before ?
P2: “I” – “I” know it. “I” come here (2.0) I just look money Chinese in here.
IDS/ RP + IDS/ PU + IDS/ RP
+ DS/ TA
NS: The Chinese were the first to invent paper money. But they actually they
used mulberry…you know where the silkworm lives? The mulberry tree?
P2. Oh yeah. “The” mull...mull ?
IDS/ UoF + IDS/ RP + IRS/
AfH
NS: Mulberry tree.
P2: Oh yeah. I know.
IDS/ UoF + IDS/ PU
NS: yeah. Where the silk, you know the cloth silk? They were the first paper
monies ever in the world.
P2: oh yeah.
IDS/ PU
112